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

I agree with most of that post . I just think that this was a test case for the company from both sides and as you correctly say neither came off well .

Will be interesting to see what comes out of this .

I could never work from home until my last few years when I could do hybrid work .

Nobody knows what is going on in people's lives , and when a very competent and good worker expresses a need from their employer in difficult times one can only hope there is some quid pro quo . Otherwise why stay working there .

It is a shame that some companies B S on about " health and well being " while on the other hand cannot exercise all these laudable practices by being a bit more flexible and supportive when their employees need it .

This may only be temporary and as you say sounds like he was valued or they would not have offered him other roles , maybe he wasn't though and they just want him out. Either way probably has happened at this stage .

FYI, I have put him on my ignore list. Life is too short to be reading seemingly bitter comments such as his.

He conflated Javier's request with a plumber only wanting to work in a house while people are sleeping ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Scratching my head wondering what Javier thought he would get off the WRC.

You'd have to say he didn't seem to understand the legislation and quite a few here seem to have not understood it either. Even after several links explaining it have been posted.

During the pandemic when all these Amazon staff were WFH and unable to think they had enormous profits. Jeff was able launch a yacht that cost half a billion in the middle of it all. Be interesting to see how they did that using only data entry people working 30 mins a day.

"...Net profit $51 billion in 2024, up from $30 billion in 2023..."

I have worked in the past in jobs where brainstorming was part of the process. But as they grew and become more corporate that vanished and everything was dictated by the line manager or project lead.

Where I am currently while we do have the sessions online and in person that have the appearance of collaboration. But in reality it's all dictated by the line manager and the outcomes are predetermined.

Occasionally you have someone that is open minded and actually listens, on those occasions it doesn't really matter if it's online or in person because the communication is just always easy and simple. It's personality type I guess. Yesterday I was dealing with a dev in another country and we had the issue agreed in 5 mins in a online video call. Whereas I was also dealing with another group and I spent all day trying to get them to do something simple.

Before lockdown our line managers had discretion over allowing remote working or not. Some did and some didn't. After lockdown it became the standardized at the organisational level. Which is better since so many managers used to block it and it cause lots of problems with hiring and retention of staff.

I'll also say on the days we are back in the office, communication is worst because many managers have less meetings and less briefings when in the office. Our director hates people talking in the open plan office, or at the water cooler, so people avoid it.

I've worked in a team based in different countries for the past 10 years in 2 companies. And yes, there's a lot that can be done online especially when you're working with people in other countries. However my whole team note that we actually get more done when we get together 3 times a year in person to properly hash things out in person. Things can get missed on even video calls. Less so in person in a room.

Also as my profession requires a lot of interaction with people, I find my reports take a lot less time to do when I'm actually in the same physical location as the people I'm dealing with. And yes that is a measurable thing - we have the stats pre-Covid, during Covid years when we were fully remote and in the more hybrid era post-Covid. Pre-Covid, a report would take on average 30 working days. During Covid, this shot up to about 70 days. Post-Covid it's down to about 40-45 days. The only difference? Not being onsite with people during Covid.

I like hybrid where you can do both.

But this I'm my experience down to some people prefer different mediums. How many in person meetings do people sit through that are a complete waste of time and nothing gets done. Whereas other meetings with different people are always productive. Concise and to the point.

Other people a 5 mins conversation or an email is all that's needed. No meeting at all.

Some of the responses in this thread highlight just how insanely blinkered a lot of the WFH advocates really are. It seems sometimes that they think working from home is more important than everything else, up to and including whether the job is actually being done or not.

People in this thread seriously suggesting that the company involved should actually have approached the client to waive their requirement to have the service provider on-site.

Think about that for a second. You have a company that provides a service to clients. The client requests, negotiates and pays for the specific service. The client clearly wants that service. The want for that service is clearly a large part of the reason they have engaged this supplier in the first place.

But in thrall to the great god of WFH, people think they should go to the client and say "Are you sure you actually want this service, can we change it so that we don't give you this service".

Are you all **** insane? Speak to your employer all you want, but going to the customer and trying to dictate what they want? Anybody who tries that is a **** idiot who should be sacked on the spot.

I think the majority advocating on WFH/Hybrid policies would agree that in the original case it was not feasible for the employee to demand WFH.

However there are many scenarios where WFH/Hybrid is beneficial to both the company and the employees.

If it takes a couple of weeks to get a response to something that's priority theres something else going on. That's about people not doing something unless you're standing over them or forced into it.

I've actually had to do the opposite. Condition or train people that anything sent in writing, email, work ticket etc. will be actioned in the proper priority.

Wander up the desk with an ad hoc request, or surprise request in a meeting (unscheduled work or "drive-bys") it will be delayed. (Unless it is actually urgent which is the minority)

Who said anything about surprise requests. Just that people sometimes get an email, mean to action it but then are distracted by others coming in & it falls down the list. I work in internal audit. So I set up the meetings well in advance, I let people know what we'll be going through & if they're able to show me something on screen rather than me emailing afterwards requesting a screenshot, then it saves everyones time, not just mine.

I can completely understand people prioritising things, however I know that some I've dealt with will put off any request from an audit function unless they are actually stood over to provide it. Despite the fact that it could take less than 5 mins if they just did it when it was requested. I have no problem with people not responding instantly but I don't think it's bad to expect a response in a reasonable timeframe to what should be straightforward requests.