WFH is dead and buried. Right to WFH bill is pointless

This.

And in reference to @Sam Hain ... and others replying and thanking that post ..

How is ".Javier wanting everything on his own terms " when expected to work until 1 am on site to accommodate a client on a different time zone ? Surely if they need him to continue on those terms the company needs to bend a little .

They were not being supportive and they deserve censure .

If they don't need him there and can get somebody else to do that role he should have been offered another role but the generic reply and way he was dealt with is not acceptable . He obviously was not offered a role that would give him any security and that is why he couldn't accept it .

This law is toothless and should be revisited to ensure that HR provide real and sustainable alternatives for workers .

It is a retrograde step allowing employers to insist that people do not wfh . WFH has been shown to improve not just work life balance , but reduce negatives of long commute as well as increased productivity .

There is no reason for outdated work practices expecting workers to always be on site if it is unnecessary .

In his case was it really necessary or was some pig headed company person just digging the heels in " sure if we give it to him they'll all be looking for it "? !

I suggest people replying think what sort of working environment ye want in future when you all have families and not just children but sick partners or elderly relatives and need a supportive work environment .

It's all fine when things are going well but that's not how life is .

No bu

No, the roles don't suit it. Like Javiers role.

Weve had interviewees looking for 100% home based roles from the start, just not practical.

Interesting to see in next census perhaps what proportion of people work from home. I'd say it's sub 10% overall.

Yes he could get a job elsewhere and more than likely will have to ad this company will not be trying to win employer of the year that's for sure .

But neither does he come out of this looking well I agree . Very naive mentioning collecting his child. Of course the client does not care about that but the parent company should try to be more accommodating if people are in difficult circumstances .

He was ill advised trying to use sketchy legislation to back up his application and then in taking it to WRC when he must have been advised that his case was not going to fly , but hey one could say he was also misled in believing that there was in fact any legislation supporting his case.

There isn't . And that's the premise of my posts. There should be . The world and people's expectations have changed , since COVID .

If anybody is interested in having a decent work life balance in the future , not work hours that don't suit and not have long commutes which are not entirely necessary , and and want to work for a company that is supportive and genuinely wants to promote staff well being and not just pay lip service to these principles , they would be advised to ensure that

a) they work for a company that promotes genuine flexible working conditions ,

and b) ensure their contract includes such conditions .

Cognizant do not look good after this either .

He was not offered another role that was viable btw which he could have been if they wanted to avert this negative publicity .

This will be an example case now which will be used to guide further negotiations , and legislation as unions can now see clearly that this particular legislation is not worth the paper on which it is written .

For that I support it . Maybe 10 / 20 years down the line some people will be thanking Javier for bringing the case , who knows !

All our present working conditions started with the Javier's who were brave ( or naive ) enough to take their employers to task over what they perceived to be injustices and without these people we would be on a race to the bottom .

Just my opinion .

Someone made a comment about returning to 1970's working conditions.

I could argue for some people working conditions were better in 1970.

Talking to my father a couple of years ago, in 1970 he was in management of a well known Irish brand. He had a secretary and two assistants, a company car and had been offered a house rent free on company land but instead opted to get his mortgage from the company for a 3 bedroom house in Foxrock. Presumeably at favourable rates. He also got a free litre of Jameson a week.

I pointed out to him that if he were working today in a similar role, instead of a secretary and 2 assistants he would be given a laptop and an iPhone. Maybe the company car but he could forget the free rent or mortgage. Actually, over the past few years Ive even noticed the inclusion of a phone in your package has become rare.

WFH was around long before Covid and will continue to be around long after it is forgotten. Companies will have a choice to attract the top talent - flexibility or re-adoption of housing assistance.

And now you, and I and lots of other people know his name. I wouldn't be taking an action against my employer like this one without changing my name by deedpoll to Patrick Murphy. Like Enoch Burke I fear Javier has made himself unemployable.

Maybe it's just me but I think this is a textbook example of how the legislation should be working.

In practice, the legislation forces employers to have a process to be followed to decide if WFH is viable for an employee and under what terms. It also gives the employee recourse to question if the process is fair and if it has been followed, as happened here.

From the limited information, he made a request, it was declined on the basis of the account he was assigned to requiring on site staff but was offered the opportunity to transfer to another account where on site presence wasn't necessary. Taking Javier at his word, he declined to move away from the account he was on, on the basis of long term job security, he prioritized that over flexibility, his choice. It's been mentioned that he was most likely getting a shift premium for the evening shift, to compensate for the antisocial hours which he may have also been reluctant to lose.

Having made his choice, he chose to question if the process was fair and had been followed. Given the employer could clearly explain grounds for refusing WFH but had also offered him an alternative which could facilitate WFH, it's only right that the employer would be vindicated in their actions.

Laws mandating it probably wouldn't be the best approach, but it would be great to see the government incentivise employers to offer WFH whenever possible. Give employers a decent and immediate financial incentive and it'll be amazing how quickly all those "Oh no, our employees who do all their work on a computer and attend every meeting via video conferencing anyway because our workforce is spread around the world couldn't possibly work from home!" claims will magically disappear.

Why would the govt pay to incentivise WFH?

Only one i can think of is less pressure on road traffic and public transport and the knock on effect for the environment but overall workers going to work is good for the economy, spending money in shops, cafés etc for lunch

Not knocking your idea but just wondering why the government might want to do this?

He was working on site with a client, his company's contract with the client requires that on site presence. He could not do that role remotely.

His company gave him the option to work with another client which would enable him to work from home, he declined, his choice.

Big corporate offices, long distance commute, corporate mindset, crazy work practices, blah, blah, blah! They tried to facilitate his request but he refused their offer.