Working from home dies a death - remote switches to hybrid... lots of people in trouble because of unworkable commutes

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 hour ago, scottbeard said:

It's a bit sad that after a year of working from home 5 days a week, there still lingers a perception that somehow anyone working from home is just dossing about if at all possible.

And anyway, aren't these firms monitoring the output of these suspected dossers?  Presumably if Bob who works from home on Fridays only produces 80% of the work of Dave who is in the office 5 days a week then fair enough, perhaps he's dossing, but at least in our company people have been just as productive from home as in the office. 

That ‘they must be dossers if they want to WFH’ perception comes from the very old fashioned thinkings of middling luddite managers soaked in presenteeism. 

[shlomo]

7 hours ago, scottbeard said:

It's a bit sad that after a year of working from home 5 days a week, there still lingers a perception that somehow anyone working from home is just dossing about if at all possible.

And anyway, aren't these firms monitoring the output of these suspected dossers?  Presumably if Bob who works from home on Fridays only produces 80% of the work of Dave who is in the office 5 days a week then fair enough, perhaps he's dossing, but at least in our company people have been just as productive from home as in the office. 

I have another scenario.

My company has people that are a lot more productive WFH, 

No office politics

no gossip 

just get on with it

 No flirting 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by shlomo

[PeanutButter]

My boss is desperate to go back full time because a) he lives 20min from the office and b) his wife has told him she is sick of his face.  

[PeanutButter]

She even mentioned divorce...

[winkie]

18 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

My boss is desperate to go back full time because a) he lives 20min from the office and b) his wife has told him she is sick of his face.  

She wants space and her life back.......he wants freedom and (the) company.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

The attacks continue:

 

Go back to office if you want to get on, says Rishi Sunak

Chancellor tells young that working from home could harm their career

Rishi Sunak has told young people that going into the office can be “really beneficial” to their careers and warned that video conferencing was no substitute.

The chancellor said that working from home would not have enabled him to build strong relationships that had stood the test of time and he cautioned against allowing remote working to become the norm.

Ministers have dropped formal advice to work from home and instead “expect and recommend a gradual return over the summer”.

 

[winkie]

Not everyone has the same ambition and values as rishi.....he is close to the money after all, and if you are not there are sometimes other more important things to do in life, 'getting on' is not one of them... thankfully we are not all the same, made the same, or think the same......

[wighty]

8 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

That ‘they must be dossers if they want to WFH’ perception comes from the very old fashioned thinkings of middling luddite managers soaked in presenteeism. 

You get digital presenteeism. I'm wasting even more the on unnecessary zoom meetings than I did having office meetings. At least then I could find a reasonable excuse to skip them.

 

[hotblack42]

2 hours ago, wighty said:

You get digital presenteeism. I'm wasting even more the on unnecessary zoom meetings than I did having office meetings. At least then I could find a reasonable excuse to skip them.

 

Learn the power of 'no'.

[Philosopher]

2 hours ago, wighty said:

You get digital presenteeism. I'm wasting even more the on unnecessary zoom meetings than I did having office meetings. At least then I could find a reasonable excuse to skip them.

 

At home, you can still see whether people are online or not, so the presenteeism issue remains. 

[BobAJob3]

3 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

The attacks continue:

 

Go back to office if you want to get on, says Rishi Sunak

Chancellor tells young that working from home could harm their career

Rishi Sunak has told young people that going into the office can be “really beneficial” to their careers and warned that video conferencing was no substitute.

The chancellor said that working from home would not have enabled him to build strong relationships that had stood the test of time and he cautioned against allowing remote working to become the norm.

Ministers have dropped formal advice to work from home and instead “expect and recommend a gradual return over the summer”.

 

Yes, Rishi made all his contacts and lucky breaks around the water cooler at work while chatting to the MD and Chairman of whatever company he was working at at the time.

Nothing to do with going to Winchester College, Oxford University, Stanford University and working for Goldman Sachs

 

 

[zugzwang]

9 minutes ago, BobAJob3 said:

Yes, Rishi made all his contacts and lucky breaks around the water cooler at work while chatting to the MD and Chairman of whatever company he was working at at the time.

Nothing to do with going to Winchester College, Oxford University, Stanford University and working for Goldman Sachs

 

 

Love to know what Richey Rish actually did at Goldmans.

Was he mispricing CDOs front of house, or shorting them into extinction in the basement?

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

20 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Love to know what Richey Rish actually did at Goldmans.

Was he mispricing CDOs front of house, or shorting them into extinction in the basement?

When he was not at the water cooler brown nosing his way up the greasy pole he was probably busy in the GS fraud department. Busy trying to hide it from regulatory oversight that is:

Parent Company Name:  

Goldman Sachs

Ownership Structure:  

publicly traded (ticker symbol GS)

Headquartered in:  

New York

Major Industry:  

financial services

Specific Industry:  

banking & securities

Penalty total since 2000:  

$16,381,931,839

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/goldman-sachs

[zugzwang]

30 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

When he was not at the water cooler brown nosing his way up the greasy pole he was probably busy in the GS fraud department. Busy trying to hide it from regulatory oversight that is:

Parent Company Name:  

Goldman Sachs

Ownership Structure:  

publicly traded (ticker symbol GS)

Headquartered in:  

New York

Major Industry:  

financial services

Specific Industry:  

banking & securities

Penalty total since 2000:  

$16,381,931,839

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/goldman-sachs

It is extraordinary, isn't it? Ten years on from the GFC and an employee of one of the chief villains is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, pumping up a third housing bubble.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

14 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

It is extraordinary, isn't it? Ten years on from the GFC and an employee of one of the chief villains is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, pumping up a third housing bubble.

It's the will of the people. Innit?

[iamnumerate]

On 31/07/2021 at 08:44, dugsbody said:

I no longer work at my previous "bigcorp" but I do laugh at them. Apparently their "survey results" and "talking to people" indicate that everyone wants to be back at the office, not working from home.

I'm guessing they limited their survey results to very senior managers, some high profile deal makers, and several up-and-coming ****-lickers, because every other person I've spoken to wants as much remote working as possible with preferably one day in the office a week, maybe two.

So bigcorp have generously allowing some additional flexibility of two days maximum remote working per week, subject to manager discretion and business area. Our team was required back in full time. My resignation was very timely and I've spoken to a few ex-colleagues who are not at all happy.

 

Was it an anonymous survey? I know someone who got a new job in central London Dec last year and they were told that they didn't have to come in.  Now they are being told - that was just during the pandemic - and they live in Cambridge!!

[hotblack42]

21 hours ago, Philosopher said:

At home, you can still see whether people are online or not, so the presenteeism issue remains. 

I have emailed & raise the question time & again with my people pleasing, conflict avoiding boss - what specifically does my employer see as the benefit of the office?

No reply, blank looks from office fans, resigned looks from colleagues who realise the futility of pressing on this matter.

As far as I can tell in this vacuum - The top bosses want us back in the office part time, see this as too obviously beneficial to explain & don't feel they are answerable to the workforce.

And yet our core values include "respect" & "teamwork"🤔

 

[Pop321]

2 hours ago, hotblack42 said:

I have emailed & raise the question time & again with my people pleasing, conflict avoiding boss - what specifically does my employer see as the benefit of the office?

No reply, blank looks from office fans, resigned looks from colleagues who realise the futility of pressing on this matter.

As far as I can tell in this vacuum - The top bosses want us back in the office part time, see this as too obviously beneficial to explain & don't feel they are answerable to the workforce.

And yet our core values include "respect" & "teamwork"🤔

 

As a WFH advocate…I think the issue of home working is that some people may abuse the situation and those people are spoiling it for everyone else. I guess like all things in life  

That also applies to office based work too ie some people spoil it for others by presenteeism etc….but ‘the bosses’ believe they can see through that more easily in the office.

Those ‘people pleasers’ who may not be 100% efficient are still pleasing people by their nature and bosses like to be told ‘yes’ even if it takes 20% more time to get it done.

Our work place was stripped down so much in places that none of this started to matter. No politics, no peacocking, no bullying, no hiding….just work. The nature of the job meant it was that this worked wonderfully with shared objectives and having to work as a team….but I imagine in some jobs that may seem a bit grey. 

[iamnumerate]

19 minutes ago, Pop321 said:

As a WFH advocate…I think the issue of home working is that some people may abuse the situation and those people are spoiling it for everyone else. I guess like all things in life  

That also applies to office based work too ie some people spoil it for others by presenteeism etc….but ‘the bosses’ believe they can see through that more easily in the office.

Those ‘people pleasers’ who may not be 100% efficient are still pleasing people by their nature and bosses like to be told ‘yes’ even if it takes 20% more time to get it done.

Our work place was stripped down so much in places that none of this started to matter. No politics, no peacocking, no bullying, no hiding….just work. The nature of the job meant it was that this worked wonderfully with shared objectives and having to work as a team….but I imagine in some jobs that may seem a bit grey. 

Some managers are really anti any thinking by their staff.  Remote working makes this type of micromanaging harder - which makes them resist it. Ideally this type of management would go - but I doubt it.

[hotblack42]

2 hours ago, hotblack42 said:

what specifically does my employer see as the benefit of the office?

PS we just posted Q2 profits 118% up on Q2 2020 which was itself a strong result, both achieved with about 95% staff WFH.

We're having consistent strong performance WFH & but most senior managers are still champing at the bit to sit in the same building, as if we are really hampered by remote working.

Odd lot.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

Wife has just been informed that she will be WFH fulltime. Occasional meetings will require an office visit but apart from that the company have decided everyone who can is now WFH. 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 hour ago, Pop321 said:

As a WFH advocate…I think the issue of home working is that some people may abuse the situation and those people are spoiling it for everyone else. I guess like all things in life  

Indeed. It's just like those stupid speed bumps everywhere you drive because some nutters in a supped-up Fiesta chitmobile cannot drive at a reasonable speed. 

[Kosmin]

5 hours ago, hotblack42 said:

No reply, blank looks from office fans, resigned looks from colleagues who realise the futility of pressing on this matter.

Is there anyone who doesn't see the benefits of working in the office AND working from home?

Once you accept that some people want to work from home and others want to work in the office, isn't it obvious that large employers will have to try to accommodate both?

[Huggy]

1 hour ago, Kosmin said:

Is there anyone who doesn't see the benefits of working in the office AND working from home?

Once you accept that some people want to work from home and others want to work in the office, isn't it obvious that large employers will have to try to accommodate both?

I can see the benefits of working in the office. They are quite inoffensive and small benefits, but they are benefits.

For me, they're not worth 5 grand and 600 hours of commuting per year.

If people really want to go in to the office, they should have the opportunity to and for as many days as they wish. Same for those who want to WFH.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

2 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Is there anyone who doesn't see the benefits of working in the office AND working from home?

Once you accept that some people want to work from home and others want to work in the office, isn't it obvious that large employers will have to try to accommodate both?

Of course there are benefits to working in the office when you, for example when you need face to face meetings. But the occurrences of these are few and far between. Working in the office is all about presenteeism for some middling mangers box ticking exercise in justifying their salary. People can quote adequately WFH and their productivity output monitored.