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

It still boils down to fact there is no active measure of contribution in public sector / civil service beyond office presence.

Repeatedly asserting something doesn't make it true.

And it isn't true. Line departments can generally be divided into process-driven areas and policy areas. Agencies tend to be much more process-driven. And there are absolutely metrics that can be, and are, measured.

You can always put in an FOI request if you're so motivated. :)

I'll follow your lead, shall I? No sources, I'll just assert "facts".

124% of civil servants who didn't have performance metrics were dismissed last year! This represents a decrease of 33 1/3 RPM over 2023 stats, which can be explained by the fact that if climate change is real, and I'm not saying it is, God will fix it, according to members of the government.

you need to be Chife financial officer or Chife lead tech something or similar totally in control of your own environment

You absolutely don't. I'm a chief of very little and I have complete control over my own schedule, attendance at the office etc. Thousands upon thousands of people in Ireland are in the exact same situation. My boss would laugh if I asked her for an hour off to bring the child to the doctor, because we both know that I work way in excess of my contracted hours.

What people are missing is that getting to this point is no accident. People don't get to "chief" level by constantly ducking out of work or watching the clock, they get there by busting their ass and putting in crazy hours.

So when I hear about things like quiet quitting and all this shyte, I always think "do people really think this is a good idea long-term?". Those people will still be here in 20 years wondering why they can't get ahead in life.

Interesting to read that 100% of cases taken against employers for the right to wfh have lost.

Only 7 to be fair. But employers winning.

Well, yes. Have you read the legislation? It's ****.

There is no other possible outcome with that legislation.

With respect some places do count the rivets when it comes to time.

Quiet quitting is sometimes the result of experience of the organisation culture. So Only half agree that busting your ass will get you up the ladder. Sometimes you have to leave to get ahead due to organisational road blocks.

The irony is that's what's happening with productivity under WFH. It's being ignored.

If I'm WFO I arrive at 10am and leave at 4pm. (Core hours).

When I WFH, I "arrive" at 9am and leave at 6/6:30pm.

While WFO, I have constant unnecessary interruptions, staff wanting a chat etc.

When I WFH, I have none of those. Guess which days are more productive?

It's a no-brainer. For most of us.

A person's manager should know exactly was is expected from their employees day to day or week to week. If person A works from home and person B works in the office, and they have the same job but vastly different productivity then it should be fairly obvious after a very short period.

If managers can't get a grip on the above they are in the wrong job, and shouldn't be a people manager.

It's hardly rocket science.

If only 50% were working. Workplaces would grind to a halt.

Guys, there's a failure of management if productivity drops, either in an office setting or WFH.

The idea that work can't be done effectively from home, that it just can't be done, is just nonsense. It obviously can be. Many companies may also see a benefit in in-person collaboration and want a hybrid dimension, to balance the benefits of reduced commuting.

The idea that WFH might just go away is obviously fanciful.

I have no evidence for this, apart from what i see with my own employees, but I think way fewer people are going to be 'workaholics' if they work at home. And that won't suit some employers. I've found my own employees are still going to mostly do good jobs, with some exceptions, but work isn't the be all and end all for any of them now. I'm not complaining, they're still very good and I've made massive savings after ending leases.

But if companies rely on people working at a level beyond what they should reasonably expect, they're going to find it hard if people are WFH.

Funny enough, the only person I saw who mentioned taking naps during the day, was someone working in Fintech in the private sector!

(Not sure if it was this thread, or the other one).

I can't agree that for everyone like me, there is someone else swinging the lead. If that was the case productivity would reflect that, and we have seen the opposite. Productivity has improved, and also the knock-on effect of less sick leave taken for minor illnesses, as the staff can work from home.

Companies that have good metrics, KPIs etc and good review systems and where you have managers willing to have the hard conversations with poor performers do not need to worry about were people work as they know their employees are working or they will be quickly managed out. For the companies that do not invest in this they just want to use badge access as a way of monitoring and really treating employees like children because there are a few that cannot be trusted to wfh.

If I go to get tea in my kitchen, the chances of it turning into a 20 minute post mortem into last night's The Apprentice is zero.

THIS ^^^