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

While not a case of bringing people back for a reason like the above my employer has no issue discriminating when it comes to wfh - official policy is 5 days in the office but they will hand out remote or hybrid contracts as they please especially to entice new hires. You will have teams with people doing very similar jobs with some mandated to be in, some hybrid and maybe one or 2 fully remote.

We had one guy leave after being hounded continually to come in full time and stop doing his few days from home which he had being doing since he joined - he was being hounded by his fully remote manager.

“The President of the USA says that….”

The President of the USA is full of sh1t

No, but having some staff with WFH perks and others not, when they are all on the same contract, isn't going to fly.

You've just said they don't have the same perks. Now you're saying they all have to be the same. That contradictory.

WFH is the same thing. Like Flexi-time or such. Not everyone has it.

Sounds like a company i worked for. Mess of a place. The fully-remote manager was let go but not before a lot of damage was done to those hybrid workers mandated to come in full-time. A 2-tiered system if ever there was one.

Trump doesn't believe that and it is untrue.

His boss, Elon Musk, has demanded all government employees return to the office in order to force people to resign. Much like Musk has done in other companies he owns, he wants to make sure the staff that work for him are completely under his control.

It’s not just new hires, they have “updated” contracts for some existing employees also to allow them work hybrid while not blatantly going against their own company policy.

As mentioned in an earlier post some of us who don’t have it in our contact are ignoring the mandate anyway so for the time being while there is no big push on enforcement it’s not as big a problem as it was initially. Though still leaving a very sour taste for many - not that we have remote/hybrid staff but they it’s not allowed for everyone it’s suitable for.

Very unfair - creates a lot of resentment too.

It’s “flavour of the month” kind of thinking - one year WFH is all the rage - next year it’s back in 5 days no exceptions.

Either WFH is good or it’s not - the people who avoid doing work will do so whether at home or in the office - clearly thats a performance issue. Clearly companies are trying to get people back as a way of pushing out those who just can’t commit to office commute - it’s an easy way to avoid redundancy payments or whatnot.

What’s going to be a new feature I think in Ireland, is letting go those who score low on performance management appraisals - and that’s something that can be hugely manipulated - for American companies like Meta currently doing this, they apparently are providing a “generous package” - but it’s ruthless - very few people score top marks in appraisals every year so even if you meet but don’t exceed your annual goals, you could be out the door.

That’s fcking scary - mortgages family commitments - could all be put in jeopardy simply because your company wants to refresh its workforce - that’s really terrifying but we’re going to see a lot more mark my words- it won’t be because roles are gone - it’s to cut an expensive workforce and recruit brand new people at a lower rate - didn’t think we’d see that in Ireland but there’s feic all the legislation can do about it - workers will just accept the payoff as it won’t be worth the stress taking a case

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1496282/

He won a very decisive election victory

HAHAHAHA!

Stop lying.

49.8% to 48.3% is in no way, shape, not form a "decisive" election victory.

This is a thread about WFH in Ireland. Stick to the subject.

Banned on the other thread, now trolling here?

Obviously you have nothing better to do.

I think it will be quite difficult to do this in Ireland with our employment legalisation, even for a private sector company they need to go though a lot of processes and have a fairly iron clad case before they can sack people.

Meta are doing it right now - there’s I think 100 or more jobs at least going - but they’re saying the jobs aren’t going- it’s the people because they didn’t achieve X standard this year - see below from my link above RTÉ news- I don’t know what they are actually calling this in Ireland - it sounds like a redundancy in that you’re going, you’re getting money from your employer- but I don’t think you’ll qualify for the additional statutory redundancy because the jobs aren’t going …..I’d be interested to see what the official government response is to this - Meta just want people out- “you’re fired” like they say in America - no PIP plan, no procedure -

“Meta said that the staff that are made redundant will be replaced by new hires meaning there will be no overall reduction in headcount.

"I've decided to raise the bar on performance management and move out low-performers faster," chief executive Mark Zuckerberg said in the memo to staff last month.

"We typically manage out people who aren't meeting expectations over the course of a year, but now we're going to do more extensive performance-based cuts during this cycle," the memo stated.

"This means we are aiming to exit approximately another 5% of our current employees who have been with the company long enough to receive a performance rating," it added.

Mr Zuckerberg also noted that the company would "provide generous severance."

HR would beg to differ.

Its not very equitable to allow 5 staff to WFH and the other 5 to be in-office, when none of the 10 are contracted to work remotely/hybrid and are all contracted to be in the workplace, full time.

“Meta said that the staff that are made redundant will be replaced by new hires meaning there will be no overall reduction in headcount.

Meta can't do that, at least, not in Ireland.

Making someone redundant here requires the position itself to no longer be available.

Not that an employee can be let go and replaced with a new person.

But they “are” is my point.

How it will go who knows. I would imagine they are relying on people taking a shed load of money and just going quietly- it can’t be called redundancy as jobs are not going, just the people and that has legislation - poor performance also has guidelines - I imagine it will be as simple as “we don’t want you anymore - here’s a bag of tax free cash - go!” - and hope people do just that. But the money would need to be a lot more than redundancy normally as that payment won’t be tax free as it’s not a redundancy - so instead of paying 4 weeks per year of service they may end up paying 8 weeks