Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

11112131416

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 4,355 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    The company concerned is PFH, an ICT supplies and services company. I must ask about the case next time they're trying to persuade me to deal with them…

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 225 ✭✭HurlingBoy


    I wouldn't sign any contract that says you can work from home now and could be asked to work onsite at any location. My contract has a definitive address. Covid probably changed alot of this around contracts but company can use RTO as a headcount cutting exercise and leave you doing impossible commutes as happened the worker in the article. It really is going to be a mine field going forward and workers have no real protection unless WFH home is specifically called out in a contract but generally companies will word the contract to give them full control or it may just be word of mouth when offering the job that company offers flexibility until they decide to change their policy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    Having dealt with them, my advice to you is this: Don't.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 52 ✭✭Sacha_N


    Negotiate it at the contract stage.

    Then deal with what you got. No whinging.

    Nobody actually wants to get up and commute every day. Working from home has been the dream for decades, there used to be scams in the adverts section offering to tell you how for just £5. If its that bad pull a sickie like the rest of us.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    Definitely negotiate it at contract stage. My last contract, they were reluctant to have it included in the contract and we came to a "gentlemen's agreement" that i would visit the office 3 times a month. Then, the 3rd of January arrives, new CTO who said in his inaugural speech that he despises the concept of WFH and from now on, everyone must attend the office 3 times a week minimum.

    Luckily for me, as what often happens when they insist everyone comes in, they found out they didnt have enough desks for everyone, so then they ruled that contractors were exempt from the requirement. Phew!

    But the point stands, if its not written in your contract, it is subject to change on the whim of the next manager that comes along.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭SodiumCooled


    Been a while since a post here but I thought better to rekindle than starting a new thread. There is a public consultation on the right to request remote work legislation - since I'm sure we all agree it is toothless and pointless some may want to contribute to the consultation in the hope it could be made far stronger. Personally I would like to see something like in Victoria Australia where employers are gong to be legally bound to allow employees WFH 2 days per week - that would soften the cough of all the RTO mandates fairly sharpish.

    https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/news-and-events/department-news/2025/november/20251117.html

    On a personal note since I have added quite a bit on my own battle to retain my 2 days WFH amid a mis-mash RTO policy while still making multiple exceptions and still hiring remote. Despite this I ignored the mandate and and had multiple arguments and shouting matches with management (some of whom WFH themselves) in the end for this and multiple other reasons I finally moved on. Management in total shock I handed in my notice and left in a major bin. I've heard even management in the US head office wondering why…. as if it wasn't clear I had issues with the WFH policy.

    New job 3 days WFH policy but pretty much told on day one its in name only and do as you want more or less so been going in maybe 1 or 2 days a week just to see but I can see it being 1 max soon. I took a not insignificant pay cut to move also, the value of WFH is just too high and the sooner the office obsessed realise it the better for everyone.

    Post edited by SodiumCooled at


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,889 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Right to request is completely pointless, you have that anyway with your freedom of speech rights. I'd argue that so too is most of the stronger legislation being proposed. You would need the legislation to clearly define every potential role available and whether or not it's possible to work from home in those roles because you can be assured your employer will try to wiggle out of it



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭itsacoolday


    Quite correct, most people I know will quietly admit , if they are honest, not as much work gets done at home. Too easy to check on a thread on boards.ie, put out the washing, chat to a neighbour, watch tv for a 40 minute coffee break or whatever.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭SodiumCooled


    I don't think it needs to clearly define every role. It would need to be worded to say a job has to be clearly and demonstratably required to be on site 5 days a week and be strongly backed up by evidence but the default is 2 days and put the onus on the employer to go fighting and proving otherwise. It seems to be going ahead in Victoria and some employers are getting annoyed which is a very good sign that they think they wont be able to get around it.

    Like a bus driver or shop assistant clearly can't do their job from home but any desk based job more or less can be done at least partially from home. It could clearly state that BS reasons like "culture", "fostering innovation" "collaboration" etc etc will not be accepted as reasons for needing to be in an office 5 days per week.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭itsacoolday


    Productivity is the reason most employers prefer workers in the office : the increase in productivity more than outweighs rent, electricity, overheads etc of office space.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭SodiumCooled


    All research points towards remote work being at least as if not more productive so you are going to have to come up with better reasons. I get far more done at home in less time than in an office. The amount of time spent chatting and getting distracted in the office far outweighs time spend putting on wash our getting the dinner on early.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,053 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    Don't forget we have some who say that people wfh are minding other people's children and are working second jobs.

    I get far more done at home than in the office.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    I call BS on the productivity argument.

    It's very easy in the office to "look busy" while at the same time getting very little done.

    The main advocates for the return to the office are the people who are insecure in their own abilities to lead and manage people.

    How does an ineffective manager prove they are managing effectively? Well all of his team is in the office today, so the facts speak for themself. Lets just ignore the fact that two fifths of his team spent the last 30 minutes discussing the Ireland v Hungary game and the rest of the team are soo very busy they are just back from "going to grab a coffee".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,889 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Employer just needs to state that all the files that the desk job person has are too sensitive to be on anything other than an internal network. I'd prefer more of a carrot/stick approach here.

    Carrot: Tax breaks on employers for every day their employees who can work from home

    Stick: Workers not allowed or able to work from home get extra pay / annual leave

    The market wouldn't be long sorting itself out



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭itsacoolday


    When you say far more done at home, do you mean far more posting on boards.ie done when at home? Genuine question.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 289 ✭✭Irish_wolf


    Do you have some evidence to back up that claim? I would be curious to read it, nearly every piece of research I have ever read shows either a marginal increase in productivity or no change at all for employees who have the option to have hybrid working conditions. Although things may have changed with more data since the pandemic.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07500-2

    There are some studies (Jacobs, K. et al. (2025) ‘Working from home and well-being’) which suggest poor productivity and life dis-satisfaction for people who do not have proper or adequate facilities at home to work from i.e. they are working in a shared space or lack the required equipment/set-up/connections. However, for top talent and top performers these are probably not going to be an issue.

    If your goal is to increase productivity it would seem counter intuitive to me to force everyone back to the office to get marginal gains from your mid-performing staff while increasing the likelihood that your top performers will start looking elsewhere.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,814 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    I've met no one who admits it.

    But I believe it: I have access to certain statistics about proxies for outputs (letters sent, client calls made, and similar). The day immediately after the company-wide anchor day is particularly low-output.

    My estimate is that WFH is great for about 25%. But the rest need human stimulation to get stuff done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,620 ✭✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    You were reading my mind.

    WFH benefits society. Less cars stuck on the M50, less people on the Luas of a morning. If companies were incentivized to have WFH roles they wouldn't be long changing their tune.

    Ive been interviewing over the past few months and as I dont live in Dublin any more, my first question was always what is their WFH position. It's amazing how many companies consider 4 days in the office as being hybrid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭SodiumCooled


    That would fall under BS excuses - there is people across all sectors dealing with highly sensitive files currently working from home so let them prove why they are special and inadequate IT systems is not a valid excuse.

    That being said I don't disagree with trying incentives either but I am not sure it's enough. There is already a major saving possible in reducing office space that most employers don't tap into. I know one place that did close their office and went fully remote as they saw no reason to keep it - company is flying and saving a fortune on office space.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,053 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭SodiumCooled


    I didn't even apply to any job that had that awful "on-site" tagline. I had one or two recruiters contact me about jobs, quite suitable but once they said fully on site I said not interested. I had one very suitable job that had a 3 days on-site requirement (officially) but was way too long commute I spoke to the hiring manager and as the job was almost exclusively going to be dealing with external and people not on the site they said I could reduce it to 1 or 2 days at most. Just before putting in my official application I was contacted to say the hiring managers boss vetoed this and would not accept anyone in less than 3 days per week. So I didn't apply and I heard it took month to fill the role after.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭itsacoolday


    But you get more posting done at home because nobody is looking over your shoulder.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 443 ✭✭cal naughton


    Looking over your shoulder! A bizarre line. We are not in school we are adults in the workplace!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,053 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    No actually on Boards far more when in the office. There is no one is looking over my shoulder, I am not in school, we're all adults.

    Cannot invent work when there is none there to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,889 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Yes they are absolutely BS excuses

    There is already a major saving possible in reducing office space that most employers don't tap into. I know one place that did close their office and went fully remote as they saw no reason to keep it - company is flying and saving a fortune on office space.

    Most businesses would need an office of some kind to show off their products to prospective clients etc. Most could downsize for sure but a bigger office always looks more impressive in those cases. Having an office I think is a must for things like meetings, even a small one but each company to their own



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭SodiumCooled


    I spent far more time on boards and internet browsing in general when I used to be in the office a lot compared to at home as I can do far more productive things at home around the house when taking a break from work. My work day is about 1.5 hours shorter on days I go in also as I don't get in until about 9:45 and leave again around 4 to beat the traffic where as at home I generally work 9-5ish



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,889 ✭✭✭✭Red Silurian


    WFH has the opposite effect then of small cafes, restaurants and corner shops loosing turnover from the workers no longer working nearby. On balance I think that societal changes are better but there are downsides as well

    I've been looking around for jobs that allow a bit of hybrid but realistically they are all either poorly paid or low balling on wages so I say meh to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 655 ✭✭✭SodiumCooled


    On the rare occasion they have an onsite meeting (maybe 3 times per year) they just rent a funcation room in a hotel or meeting room in a hot desk hub. I have a relation working there hence how I know this, I'm not guessing.

    So many businesses are software or other non-phsyical developments nowadays that showing off products isn't really a thing. Anyone doing something physical will obviously need a place to make it at the very least.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 21,583 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    is the moral of this story that you had to take a pay cut to retain your ability to WFH to your liking, appears to go against the grain of posts in this thread where people were saying employers would know all about it when people left for more flexibility and they will have to pay big money to replace them. In this case your new employer got a productive employee for less than they were already on?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭con___manx1


    The problem with people going back to the office is there is not the infrastructure or public transport to deal with it. Everyone is moving out of dublin where jobs don't exist then commuting into Dublin. The next 2 or 3 years those roads will b gridlocked completely. It's already getting there right now. People and companies will have no choice but to let workers work from home thanks to our idiotic government.



Advertisement