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

The flip side is maybe the small cafe or corner shop moves out of Dublin to where the workers are now living.

Not that it's any of your business, but no, private sector.

Very odd post.

It's a genuine post, he is at home all day and if he could get a job that would suit him it would be great. The company you work for sounds great as you say you can post a lot online on boards.ie when at work like today, and it offers home working too as he loves Netflix ( we joke he has an addiction! ) and could have it on in the background at home? Everyone happy?

It really does - generally if someone has been in a role for a while, despite getting annual increases, the overall labour market will have moved on & hiring a like-for-like replacement will actually cost the company more money. It's why companies will try to retain employees rather than going down the recruitment road because of the difference in cost.

Actually they said 30% which you've now increased to 40-50% for some reason.

Look monetary compensation is not the only thing that matters. I know technically I could earn more with my skill level/years of experience by moving but then there are the unknowns such as will I get on with people the way I do in my current workplace, will I be able to start a little later & work later so I can drop my child to school, will the commute be as straightforward as I currently have it, are the wfh arrangements what I'd like? Not to mention other benefits which I have. So while yes, you can probably negotiate up a salary a bit, those things will often play a larger role in a decision to stay or go for a higher salary. So I take a look at the whole and not just the money. And it's known, you'll always get more money by moving than staying & getting increases but again it's the other aspects that you need to consider.

But her new role pay has nothing to do with what her old company will have to increase the salary to to replace her? They are separate. The like for like hire would be 30% so if she was going to stay, my point was around you're aren't going to get a 25-30% increase from your current company without some significant change in your role as increases versus open market are different.

And of course if you do reduced hours, you'll get paid less.

My point was exactly what I said below - getting your salary matched to market rates if there is a 30% difference is going to be quite difficult. They may come up close but rarely will they match that. Even with forthright conversations.

Our WFH policy hasn't changed since 2023 when it was first brought in. We can work from home up to 50% of the time, as long as you're in an area of the business that suits that type of work (the vast majority) and you're flexible enough that you can come in on your normal WFH days if there's something happening that needs you to be there.

There was some talk of pushing it to 60% when they tracked security cards on an aggregate basis and found that the workforce was not hitting the 50% minimum (think we were around 45/46%). That was soon put to bed when the union made it clear that it was a red line. What they are doing now is similar to what I believe was brought in in KPMG. They are tracking security cards on an individual level and anyone that falls below the 50% in a calendar month will be flagged on a report that goes to your head of department.

It's a pity that it's come to this level of nit-picking from management. Yes, there were likely people that were completely taking the p*ss, only coming in one day a week (if that) and in typical public service fashion, it was clear their local management were not tackling this with them. If you took the outliers out of the equation, I'd say the vast majority of the rest of the staff were within a 48-55% range. But now if you are 49% in a given month, you show up on a report. It makes us feel like factory workers rather than professionals. That said, management are trying to cut staff numbers at the moment, so they won't mind if this is the straw that breaks the camel's back and a few people leave over it. It'll save them having to make voluntary redundancies and the attendant scrutiny that would get.

Strict RTO policies are so counter-intuitive. We've seen good people - usually those travelling up from outside of Dublin - leave to get other jobs that are only one or two days in the office a week, or to get a job closer to home. Lots of them would have had 10+ years' experience and all that knowledge is lost.

Me? I was doing the 50% anyway so it makes no odds to me. It sours my trust in management and makes the working culture more difficult to stomach, but I know this too shall pass and I won't be leaving unless a sparkly voluntary redundancy package is offered.

I guess there are two things at play, as I suppose I have already said. The jobs are not directly comparable so it’s not fair to say the new job is paying less for a similar role as it’s a fairly different role.

Moving was not motivated by money (obviously). If a suitable job meeting my other non-salary related requirements but also paying the same or more I would have obviously gone for it but for the most part these jobs were too far away even if most did offer a satisfactory level of wfh if local to me it wasn’t enough for hours of a commute. I gave one example in an earlier post, my salary would have increased, job would be much more relaxed and have sufficient wfh if living near it but not when it was multiple hours drive away. Were I closer to Dublin or Cork to make 3 days commute viable I would have had a much larger choice but I am located in an awkward “in-between” that makes neither viable more than once a week (I’ve no interest in regular long commutes).

Also while I would have been fairly happy with retaining my 2 days wfh I am happier to have increased this to at least 3 and realistically going by what I have experience so far it will be 4 days wfh or even 5 some weeks if I want.

A private VPN and/ or remote desktop resolve that easily. No confidential data needs to leave the employer's network.

I have the perfect mix. WFH either 2 or 3 days a week, and a boss 5000 miles away.

This summer I was lucky enough to be able to "WFH" in a different country, meaning I could fly on a weekday, and save a fortune, before working Thu and Fri of that week "remotely". I was lucky as other companies in the same industry have stipulations that you can WFH, if, you can make it to site in one hour, for emergencies, etc.

The social thing is good as well, as on any day you are onsite you meet other colleagues you haven't seen in a while and can catch up over breakfast or lunch. I also find its better to talk out ongoing issues with a group physically together as opposed to "Teams".

Clearly, though, looks like I am luckier than some on here, so will keep enjoying the hybrid nature, as long as that prevails.