FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Working from home
Working from home
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
. Most people cannot work from home effectively in the long term. Social interaction with work colleagues is essential as is teamwork. If problems arise you cannot simply walk over to the desk of another colleague or interact with another department. Long waits for driving licences at the DVLA are an example of the dangers of allowing a work from home policy. To whom should the potential savings of working from home be passed or should they be shared ? We currently. have civil servants claiming a London weighting but working from home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
The fossil fuels industry, whom he works for, want us to burn more fuel travelling around. So he's representing their interests. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.. Most people cannot work from home effectively in the long term. Social interaction with work colleagues is essential as is teamwork. If problems arise you cannot simply walk over to the desk of another colleague or interact with another department. Long waits for driving licences at the DVLA are an example of the dangers of allowing a work from home policy. To whom should the potential savings of working from home be passed or should they be shared ? We currently. have civil servants claiming a London weighting but working from home. "
Deny them the weighting, if they work from home.
As for needing to meet colleagues face to face - that doesn't have to be done every day, or for every eventuality; not in the communications environment we now enjoy.
I still think it might end up in court - especially if insisting on it, during the cost of living increase, reduces anyone's pay to the point that they might go into arrears on their rent or bills.
It's unlikely but it's not impossible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
. Your work place is usually defined in a contact of employer. It is difficult to see how legal action could be justified.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If you do a little research you might find that one of the reasons for the backlog at the DVLA is because COVID was rife in their offices in Newport and that managers were insisting against all precautions that work had to be done in the office rather than at home. It’s called cause and effect! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
Working from home was a temporary measure during the pandemic. Everything else has gone back to “normal” and so should all workers. Hybrid working is a more normalised concept where you have three (Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday) in the office and Monday and Friday at home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
I'm working from home and I'm doing as much as I was in the office
With all this talk of climate change and carbon impact I'd certainly argue with my employer if they tried to force me back into the office why they want me to drive 40 miles a day for just the start |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
But luckily they've been open to listening to the employee's (who heavily voted in favour of home working) so it looks like they are going to maintain it
I imagine they'll have us attend the office for specific training etc but otherwise they'll leave us be |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The DVLA have a huge backlog because they were pressured to work in the office during pandemic. This caused outbreaks in the offices!
My team has been working from home since 2020. We've been more productive. We've no pressure from anyone to go into the office. However we do have a planned day in once a week, but again, no pressure to go into the office.
The company I work for have embraced home working and will continue to do so. Most large private companies are doing this too.
The push for people to return to the office are from Tories because they and most of their circle are landlords and don't want companies moving out of their office buildings as that means less rent for them.
It's difficult for someone like JRM to justify his job when there's no one there to see him walking around the office doing fuck all.
Because of home working, businesses around me are thriving. Local independent coffee shops, butchers, cafes, etc have more customers than ever before. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"If you do a little research you might find that one of the reasons for the backlog at the DVLA is because COVID was rife in their offices in Newport and that managers were insisting against all precautions that work had to be done in the office rather than at home. It’s called cause and effect!"
The cause is that they are still getting full pay staying off work so called working from home even though many others have gone back to work.
1,000s are waiting for driving licence renewals documents tied up in process with no reason.
Civil service at its best  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
I'm working from home and I'm doing as much as I was in the office
With all this talk of climate change and carbon impact I'd certainly argue with my employer if they tried to force me back into the office why they want me to drive 40 miles a day for just the start"
Maybe you can take a pay cut in balance of what the commute costs were costing you then  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
Lot of people working on London and now from home are still being paid the London weighting allowance and ultimately it’s us who pick up the bill..this is wrong and can not be justified |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
So clear people are falling for yet another narrative being driven by heavy lobbying of those with vested interests creating a binary argument when really there is more complexity and nuance to be had. The language is also inflammatory as it is implicit that you are not working if at home, which is a completely outdated mid 20th century concept that ignores the impact of the internet and technology.
Of course not all (or indeed many) jobs can be done from home, but a lot can, particularly if they are desk/computer/phone-based.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports increased productivity from those type of workers when they have flexibility around how, where snd when they work.
Indeed the tech companies no longer stipulate place or hours of work in employment contracts, they are tasked based. Hit your deadlines then nobody cares. Let teams be self managing based on their needs to ensure delivery against targets. Use collaborative technologies and hybrid working where necessary (workshops with high levels of interaction).
There are many upsides for those whose jobs are perfectly possible to do from home, not least work/life balance, saving money on commuting and over-priced sandwiches, saving huge amounts of time not commuting. Reduced stress and fatigue.
There are also downsides as your home environment will also determine how successful working from home is. If you are young and live in a house/flat share then it is probably hell. If you have a decent house and a room you can turn into an office, then happy days.
People shouting about “London weighting” are missing the point that this is no really about the cost of commuting (you still commute in Yorkshire for example) it is because of the very highly inflated cost of living in the South East with house prices and general costs for everything being higher.
For businesses whose staff can WFH there are huge downstream benefits including downsizing your office rental space and being able to recruit staff on a national rather than local/regional level.
But commercial landlords funding the Torys are scared about this! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
Lot of people working on London and now from home are still being paid the London weighting allowance and ultimately it’s us who pick up the bill..this is wrong and can not be justified "
in many cases their home is still London. (or London enough to have higher costs). The commute is only part of the costs.
And making ppl work from the office isn't going to helpnrwdice the bill. If money is the concern, we should renegotiate contracts and close down office space.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you do a little research you might find that one of the reasons for the backlog at the DVLA is because COVID was rife in their offices in Newport and that managers were insisting against all precautions that work had to be done in the office rather than at home. It’s called cause and effect!
The cause is that they are still getting full pay staying off work so called working from home even though many others have gone back to work.
1,000s are waiting for driving licence renewals documents tied up in process with no reason.
Civil service at its best "
Nonsense! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"If you do a little research you might find that one of the reasons for the backlog at the DVLA is because COVID was rife in their offices in Newport and that managers were insisting against all precautions that work had to be done in the office rather than at home. It’s called cause and effect!
The cause is that they are still getting full pay staying off work so called working from home even though many others have gone back to work.
1,000s are waiting for driving licence renewals documents tied up in process with no reason.
Civil service at its best
Nonsense!"
Not really and the passport office is the same and the home office |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Lucky for me I can't wfh my son just left is job because wfh last year or so and wanted to go back to the office like some do but wasn't aloud so he's swapped jobs completely so wfh is not everyone's idea of greatness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.. Your work place is usually defined in a contact of employer. It is difficult to see how legal action could be justified.."
"Usually". Maybe. But I understand how the concept is difficult for you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can"
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"So clear people are falling for yet another narrative being driven by heavy lobbying of those with vested interests creating a binary argument when really there is more complexity and nuance to be had. The language is also inflammatory as it is implicit that you are not working if at home, which is a completely outdated mid 20th century concept that ignores the impact of the internet and technology.
Of course not all (or indeed many) jobs can be done from home, but a lot can, particularly if they are desk/computer/phone-based.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports increased productivity from those type of workers when they have flexibility around how, where snd when they work.
Indeed the tech companies no longer stipulate place or hours of work in employment contracts, they are tasked based. Hit your deadlines then nobody cares. Let teams be self managing based on their needs to ensure delivery against targets. Use collaborative technologies and hybrid working where necessary (workshops with high levels of interaction).
There are many upsides for those whose jobs are perfectly possible to do from home, not least work/life balance, saving money on commuting and over-priced sandwiches, saving huge amounts of time not commuting. Reduced stress and fatigue.
There are also downsides as your home environment will also determine how successful working from home is. If you are young and live in a house/flat share then it is probably hell. If you have a decent house and a room you can turn into an office, then happy days.
People shouting about “London weighting” are missing the point that this is no really about the cost of commuting (you still commute in Yorkshire for example) it is because of the very highly inflated cost of living in the South East with house prices and general costs for everything being higher.
For businesses whose staff can WFH there are huge downstream benefits including downsizing your office rental space and being able to recruit staff on a national rather than local/regional level.
But commercial landlords funding the Torys are scared about this! "
There you go, talking sense again. You do realise where you are?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So clear people are falling for yet another narrative being driven by heavy lobbying of those with vested interests creating a binary argument when really there is more complexity and nuance to be had. The language is also inflammatory as it is implicit that you are not working if at home, which is a completely outdated mid 20th century concept that ignores the impact of the internet and technology.
Of course not all (or indeed many) jobs can be done from home, but a lot can, particularly if they are desk/computer/phone-based.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports increased productivity from those type of workers when they have flexibility around how, where snd when they work.
Indeed the tech companies no longer stipulate place or hours of work in employment contracts, they are tasked based. Hit your deadlines then nobody cares. Let teams be self managing based on their needs to ensure delivery against targets. Use collaborative technologies and hybrid working where necessary (workshops with high levels of interaction).
There are many upsides for those whose jobs are perfectly possible to do from home, not least work/life balance, saving money on commuting and over-priced sandwiches, saving huge amounts of time not commuting. Reduced stress and fatigue.
There are also downsides as your home environment will also determine how successful working from home is. If you are young and live in a house/flat share then it is probably hell. If you have a decent house and a room you can turn into an office, then happy days.
People shouting about “London weighting” are missing the point that this is no really about the cost of commuting (you still commute in Yorkshire for example) it is because of the very highly inflated cost of living in the South East with house prices and general costs for everything being higher.
For businesses whose staff can WFH there are huge downstream benefits including downsizing your office rental space and being able to recruit staff on a national rather than local/regional level.
But commercial landlords funding the Torys are scared about this!
There you go, talking sense again. You do realise where you are? "
Sorry I forget sometimes  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it."
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office "
How do you expect a business to thrive and attract highly motivated employees, with that kind of thinking? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke. |
Quite a tough one this, really.
My friend continues to work at home, and it is saving a small fortune in daily costs for her. So this results in quite a large pay increase, really. She wondered about a baby-break that wouldn't interfere with her career. Now it becomes so much more feasible for her to do.
Her company are saving a fortune in office costs. They have reduced their office footprint by more than 70%. Their utility costs will have dropped by the same amount. Right at a time when those costs are more than doubling. And it could be the difference between business success/failures.
Local businesses - the high street near her place of work, are losing that income from her and all those others that would shop daily too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office
How do you expect a business to thrive and attract highly motivated employees, with that kind of thinking? "
That’s the kind of line I expect to hear from people trying to justify being too lazy to go to work
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Quite a tough one this, really.
My friend continues to work at home, and it is saving a small fortune in daily costs for her. So this results in quite a large pay increase, really. She wondered about a baby-break that wouldn't interfere with her career. Now it becomes so much more feasible for her to do.
Her company are saving a fortune in office costs. They have reduced their office footprint by more than 70%. Their utility costs will have dropped by the same amount. Right at a time when those costs are more than doubling. And it could be the difference between business success/failures.
Local businesses - the high street near her place of work, are losing that income from her and all those others that would shop daily too.
"
That’s it though many businesses rely on the lunchtime trade from office workers will not be able to survive.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke. |
"Quite a tough one this, really.
My friend continues to work at home, and it is saving a small fortune in daily costs for her. So this results in quite a large pay increase, really. She wondered about a baby-break that wouldn't interfere with her career. Now it becomes so much more feasible for her to do.
Her company are saving a fortune in office costs. They have reduced their office footprint by more than 70%. Their utility costs will have dropped by the same amount. Right at a time when those costs are more than doubling. And it could be the difference between business success/failures.
Local businesses - the high street near her place of work, are losing that income from her and all those others that would shop daily too.
That’s it though many businesses rely on the lunchtime trade from office workers will not be able to survive.
"
Yes. The high-street, already in so much change pre-covid, has changed even more because of work from home.
I try to shop at least weekly on the high-street, but will admit to online probably more than I should.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Quite a tough one this, really.
My friend continues to work at home, and it is saving a small fortune in daily costs for her. So this results in quite a large pay increase, really. She wondered about a baby-break that wouldn't interfere with her career. Now it becomes so much more feasible for her to do.
Her company are saving a fortune in office costs. They have reduced their office footprint by more than 70%. Their utility costs will have dropped by the same amount. Right at a time when those costs are more than doubling. And it could be the difference between business success/failures.
Local businesses - the high street near her place of work, are losing that income from her and all those others that would shop daily too.
"
That’s about supply and demand so capitalism. Funny how “social” arguments start getting made when people are losing money.
The pandemic simply accelerated a trend towards digital/internet enabled working and the move away from the high street.
City centres need to be completely rethought with a move away from over-prices office space back towards urban communities. Create affordable housing and you create demand for services on a new city centre local basis (along with schools, doctors, shops, cafes, restaurants) and people can walk to the smaller offices now needed and WFH with super fast broadband in those already connected former office blocks turned into homes! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office "
Nonsense. Businesses need to adapt, modernise and embrace technology. Large offices with banks of desks were always going to be obsolete, the pandemic accelerated it. Smaller offices with less desks but more collaboration space is the future along with hybrid working. Welcome to the 21st Century! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office "
There's zero advantage to me doing my work in am office or in my home
Unless you can give a good logical reason as to why then you have nothing to add to the conversation
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office
How do you expect a business to thrive and attract highly motivated employees, with that kind of thinking?
That’s the kind of line I expect to hear from people trying to justify being too lazy to go to work
"
That's the kind of line I expect to hear from people to stupid to sound reasoning
Why? Because I said so
The argument of the dumbass since records began |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Working from home was a temporary measure during the pandemic. Everything else has gone back to “normal” and so should all workers. Hybrid working is a more normalised concept where you have three (Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday) in the office and Monday and Friday at home. "
For the majority of employees this seems to be the case. But in some industries it has been the norm for over a decade. Some facetime is essential, but once working patters established it of perfectly possible to effectively work remotely for the majority of time. Milage may vary from industry to industry.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.. Your work place is usually defined in a contact of employer. It is difficult to see how legal action could be justified.."
Precisely this. I doubt a court case will establish a “right” to work from home or invent some discrimination basis whereby remote effectiveness is a test.
Hybrid working will be an increasing element of the work-life balance in coming years. Many industries where highly skilled staff are in high demand and employers or clients have to compete have been embracing it for a while now - long before the pandemic, but it has certainly become a bigger topic during and since.
It will be for employers however to decide and it will be contractual terms that determine what happens. Unless staff have a contractual basis for continuation then it will be down to employer discretion.
Some will embrace the coat savings and the added productivity that a successfully managed work life balance can bring. Very much depends in the culture and dynamics of an organisation.
A hybrid balance is usually most effective. But being in the office 5 days a week will become less of a “thing”.
Personally I’d refuse an engagement that
Mandated 5 days per week in the office unless it was very short term or travel time and costs were covered. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If the pandemic has achieved one positive thing, it's shown that WFH is achievable for many desk-based office role if there is a will and a way to operate it.
It's also shown what a lot of folks have suspected all along...there are many superfluous tiers of "middle management" who are surplus to requirements and many teams below them have effectively managed themselves without "micro-management."
Funnily enough, it's always mostly the "mid management" who previously screamed about "bums on seats", but now the cat's out the bag, senior Directors are seeing cost-saving potential.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them."
Don't know if you saw article on BBC in regards to the recent energy Price Cap increase?
BBC News - Is the energy price cap wrong?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61078975
The average figure is based on a property being vacated during the day, not working at home with heating, lights and computers switched on.
I International Energy Agency said late last week that "to cause pain to Putin", people of Europe and the UK should work from home.
This apparently with save 120 ships of crude oil per year with no allowance included for additional gas and gas based electricity generation.
Considering that when in the office, there is communal heating and lighting meaning where there are 30 people in the office, 30x boilers and lights at home are not consuming energy.
OfGEM have now admitted they have grossly underestimated 'average annual' consumption of £1971 due to heating being switched on at home during the winter. Although winter has been milder this year, it is still adding to significant costs.
I don't know anyone working from home where their gas and electricity consumption has not risen by at least 30% due to being home all day.
If you are or have been working from home, speak to your employer, accountant or HMRC in respect to tax rebates.
You can claim against bills and costs in relation to working at home costs and allowances. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office
How do you expect a business to thrive and attract highly motivated employees, with that kind of thinking?
That’s the kind of line I expect to hear from people trying to justify being too lazy to go to work
That's the kind of line I expect to hear from people to stupid to sound reasoning
Why? Because I said so
The argument of the dumbass since records began"
i expect you are working from home then being as productive as you would ber in the office  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"So clear people are falling for yet another narrative being driven by heavy lobbying of those with vested interests creating a binary argument when really there is more complexity and nuance to be had. The language is also inflammatory as it is implicit that you are not working if at home, which is a completely outdated mid 20th century concept that ignores the impact of the internet and technology.
Of course not all (or indeed many) jobs can be done from home, but a lot can, particularly if they are desk/computer/phone-based.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports increased productivity from those type of workers when they have flexibility around how, where snd when they work.
Indeed the tech companies no longer stipulate place or hours of work in employment contracts, they are tasked based. Hit your deadlines then nobody cares. Let teams be self managing based on their needs to ensure delivery against targets. Use collaborative technologies and hybrid working where necessary (workshops with high levels of interaction).
There are many upsides for those whose jobs are perfectly possible to do from home, not least work/life balance, saving money on commuting and over-priced sandwiches, saving huge amounts of time not commuting. Reduced stress and fatigue.
There are also downsides as your home environment will also determine how successful working from home is. If you are young and live in a house/flat share then it is probably hell. If you have a decent house and a room you can turn into an office, then happy days.
People shouting about “London weighting” are missing the point that this is no really about the cost of commuting (you still commute in Yorkshire for example) it is because of the very highly inflated cost of living in the South East with house prices and general costs for everything being higher.
For businesses whose staff can WFH there are huge downstream benefits including downsizing your office rental space and being able to recruit staff on a national rather than local/regional level.
But commercial landlords funding the Torys are scared about this!
There you go, talking sense again. You do realise where you are?
Sorry I forget sometimes "
Interesting last point. I believe 25% of Tory funding is from the property developing investment industry.
Regards to the working from home issue, I think a lot of these decisions will be dictated by the contract signed when a person agreed to work for a company. It should clearly state their place of work depending on the type of job.
Any costs around the commute have no relevance as the contract was signed willingly.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"So clear people are falling for yet another narrative being driven by heavy lobbying of those with vested interests creating a binary argument when really there is more complexity and nuance to be had. The language is also inflammatory as it is implicit that you are not working if at home, which is a completely outdated mid 20th century concept that ignores the impact of the internet and technology.
Of course not all (or indeed many) jobs can be done from home, but a lot can, particularly if they are desk/computer/phone-based.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports increased productivity from those type of workers when they have flexibility around how, where snd when they work.
Indeed the tech companies no longer stipulate place or hours of work in employment contracts, they are tasked based. Hit your deadlines then nobody cares. Let teams be self managing based on their needs to ensure delivery against targets. Use collaborative technologies and hybrid working where necessary (workshops with high levels of interaction).
There are many upsides for those whose jobs are perfectly possible to do from home, not least work/life balance, saving money on commuting and over-priced sandwiches, saving huge amounts of time not commuting. Reduced stress and fatigue.
There are also downsides as your home environment will also determine how successful working from home is. If you are young and live in a house/flat share then it is probably hell. If you have a decent house and a room you can turn into an office, then happy days.
People shouting about “London weighting” are missing the point that this is no really about the cost of commuting (you still commute in Yorkshire for example) it is because of the very highly inflated cost of living in the South East with house prices and general costs for everything being higher.
For businesses whose staff can WFH there are huge downstream benefits including downsizing your office rental space and being able to recruit staff on a national rather than local/regional level.
But commercial landlords funding the Torys are scared about this!
There you go, talking sense again. You do realise where you are?
Sorry I forget sometimes
Interesting last point. I believe 25% of Tory funding is from the property developing investment industry.
Regards to the working from home issue, I think a lot of these decisions will be dictated by the contract signed when a person agreed to work for a company. It should clearly state their place of work depending on the type of job.
Any costs around the commute have no relevance as the contract was signed willingly.
"
Which is precisely why contracts in the tech sector have for years NOT stipulated a place of work. In many cases they don’t stipulate specific time of work either. They are task and targets driven. Basically treat people like adults. The chancers and slackers soon get found out as they miss deadlines or targets. The super organised and efficient folk manage to find a good work life balance that flexibly fits with other commitments (eg school run etc).
Sensible mentoring supportive leaders should not care where or when work is done as long as it is delivered on time, to budget and at right quality.
Not all human beings have the same body rhythms. Some work best in morning. Some in afternoon. Some at night. There needs to be some compromise to collaborate and interact but flexibility is key and not a fear of losing control or required presenteeism.
Good workers are good workers. Give them the flex and they pay it back and more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Oh and another benefit (may not articulate this well)...
So many domestic things (visiting dentist, doctor, bank, calling utilities call centres, visiting the kids school, home deliveries etc) are a 9-5 Mon-Fri requirement. Dealing with these domestic things takes time away from work but would have far less impact with flexibility and WFH.
Generally people who WFH are logged on earlier and log off later but dip in and out to take care of other stuff.
For most, productivity is higher. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office
How do you expect a business to thrive and attract highly motivated employees, with that kind of thinking?
That’s the kind of line I expect to hear from people trying to justify being too lazy to go to work
"
Your responses lead me to believe you know very little about motivating and attracting talent in a business world.
I was working 2 days in the office, 3 days from home before the pandemic, why? Because I was looking for more flexibility in my work - life balance. Unfortunately people judge others by their own standards or antiquated views.
Some people are more than capable of working successfully unsupervised, but I can see how some may not fit into that model so easily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
One last point (probably) is that the people generally moaning about people working from home tend to be the people who do jobs that you cannot do from home. It is part envy and part concern about the impact on their own job (if, for example, they work in a sandwich shop reliant on commuter/office based footfall).
I get that latter point but would say the writing has been on the wall since the internet arrived. Things are changing but have been accelerated. However, you cannot be angry at people whose career choice has put them in a position where they are able to WFH.
The other factor is that some Pension Funds are over exposed to Commercial Property (and short-sighted I would say as there was already a glut in places like London).
The Pension Funds, Commercial Property Developers and the Commercial Landlords are all worried and will need to change their business/investment models (but in the meantime they will lobby hard). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"So clear people are falling for yet another narrative being driven by heavy lobbying of those with vested interests creating a binary argument when really there is more complexity and nuance to be had. The language is also inflammatory as it is implicit that you are not working if at home, which is a completely outdated mid 20th century concept that ignores the impact of the internet and technology.
Of course not all (or indeed many) jobs can be done from home, but a lot can, particularly if they are desk/computer/phone-based.
There is a significant body of evidence that supports increased productivity from those type of workers when they have flexibility around how, where snd when they work.
Indeed the tech companies no longer stipulate place or hours of work in employment contracts, they are tasked based. Hit your deadlines then nobody cares. Let teams be self managing based on their needs to ensure delivery against targets. Use collaborative technologies and hybrid working where necessary (workshops with high levels of interaction).
There are many upsides for those whose jobs are perfectly possible to do from home, not least work/life balance, saving money on commuting and over-priced sandwiches, saving huge amounts of time not commuting. Reduced stress and fatigue.
There are also downsides as your home environment will also determine how successful working from home is. If you are young and live in a house/flat share then it is probably hell. If you have a decent house and a room you can turn into an office, then happy days.
People shouting about “London weighting” are missing the point that this is no really about the cost of commuting (you still commute in Yorkshire for example) it is because of the very highly inflated cost of living in the South East with house prices and general costs for everything being higher.
For businesses whose staff can WFH there are huge downstream benefits including downsizing your office rental space and being able to recruit staff on a national rather than local/regional level.
But commercial landlords funding the Torys are scared about this!
There you go, talking sense again. You do realise where you are?
Sorry I forget sometimes
Interesting last point. I believe 25% of Tory funding is from the property developing investment industry.
Regards to the working from home issue, I think a lot of these decisions will be dictated by the contract signed when a person agreed to work for a company. It should clearly state their place of work depending on the type of job.
Any costs around the commute have no relevance as the contract was signed willingly.
Which is precisely why contracts in the tech sector have for years NOT stipulated a place of work. In many cases they don’t stipulate specific time of work either. They are task and targets driven. Basically treat people like adults. The chancers and slackers soon get found out as they miss deadlines or targets. The super organised and efficient folk manage to find a good work life balance that flexibly fits with other commitments (eg school run etc).
Sensible mentoring supportive leaders should not care where or when work is done as long as it is delivered on time, to budget and at right quality.
Not all human beings have the same body rhythms. Some work best in morning. Some in afternoon. Some at night. There needs to be some compromise to collaborate and interact but flexibility is key and not a fear of losing control or required presenteeism.
Good workers are good workers. Give them the flex and they pay it back and more. "
I agree with all of that and have no issue with process admin or stand alone workers working from home. It falls down slightly with sakes and team processes as the personal interaction does matter.
The other negative is not restricted to just the lower grade workers hiding from bosses. One director we had dealings with was supposedly working from home but discovered on the 9th hole playing golf by his MD who was actually on holiday. He now works in the office full time.
If someone is shy of work then working from home sadly can enable them . At the start of Covid we sent all our admin staff home as we were able to do so due to an already existing good IT infrastructure . The operations staff and operations managers had to continue. After the restrictions were lifted a surprising amount of staff came back to the office voluntarily. They missed the interaction.
We’ve ended up with a relaxed hybrid model but we did allow a great deal of flexible working before so it wasn’t a major problem.
We still however monitor work levels. I think only one member of staff has been put under supervision and told they must work in the office due to their work shy nature. That has been put down to being a bad recruit.
Some people will avoid work whether in the office or not. One MD I know was informed by his IT department that his admin office of around a hundred people were using Facebook a lot.
He asked for detailed reports on all staff . Turns out his daughter who worked there was on Facebook over three hours a day on average.
IT quietly and without fuss switched all the social media access off and personal phones has to be kept in drawers . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
The bad eggs always spoil things for the good eggs!
I read an interesting article the other day about (generally) some of the work culture differences between the Boomers, Gen X, Millennials.
Apart from a reflection on life stage and domestic set up, it was clear that the most able to work independently and be conscientious were (generally) Gen X.
Don’t shoot messenger, that wasn’t my research...says proud Gen Xer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
At the start of the pandemic and work from home I remember on the news small businesses on high streets who used to sell to the traveling public were badly hit. I would expect they would want to see a return to how it was. I don't see it going back to how it was though and think work from home a couple of days a week will be normal for those that can
That seems more likely. I just wondered if anyone would ever take a legal stand against being forced to do something they don't want to do, if it's provably unnecessary for them to do it.
If you take a job that requires you to work in an office or similar then that’s where you belong.
To start demanding that you should be entitled to work from home just because you feel like it is not acceptable.
People should just get back to the office
How do you expect a business to thrive and attract highly motivated employees, with that kind of thinking?
That’s the kind of line I expect to hear from people trying to justify being too lazy to go to work
That's the kind of line I expect to hear from people to stupid to sound reasoning
Why? Because I said so
The argument of the dumbass since records began
i expect you are working from home then being as productive as you would ber in the office "
The central office is, of course, monitoring productivity. For departments whose productivity has dropped they may well be dragged back in
My dept has increased productivity so they are no plans to change the current status quo
It's just logical |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The bad eggs always spoil things for the good eggs!
I read an interesting article the other day about (generally) some of the work culture differences between the Boomers, Gen X, Millennials.
Apart from a reflection on life stage and domestic set up, it was clear that the most able to work independently and be conscientious were (generally) Gen X.
Don’t shoot messenger, that wasn’t my research...says proud Gen Xer "
In fairness that is probably because:
Boomers invented much of the tech but had to adapt to the transition.
Gen X had experience of the transition and have learnt the soft skills in the office so best of both worlds
Millennials don’t know anything but the tech and have not benefited from old akool or transitional experience, they make up for that with drive and inspiration though.
So all good, the best team has a healthy mix of all three. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"The bad eggs always spoil things for the good eggs!
I read an interesting article the other day about (generally) some of the work culture differences between the Boomers, Gen X, Millennials.
Apart from a reflection on life stage and domestic set up, it was clear that the most able to work independently and be conscientious were (generally) Gen X.
Don’t shoot messenger, that wasn’t my research...says proud Gen Xer
In fairness that is probably because:
Boomers invented much of the tech but had to adapt to the transition.
Gen X had experience of the transition and have learnt the soft skills in the office so best of both worlds
Millennials don’t know anything but the tech and have not benefited from old akool or transitional experience, they make up for that with drive and inspiration though.
So all good, the best team has a healthy mix of all three. "
Yeah I know/agree but thought it was funny and I could relate being a Gen X. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
Well, now it would appear that Boris thinks it's not a good idea because he can't do it properly.
In his case, to be fair, that is demonstrably true. To the tune of tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Indecisiveness, lack of focus, late lockdown. I know that was all a long time ago - but it did happen.
However, IF you can work from home, with no loss of effectiveness/efficiency, you should be allowed to.
To tell anyone that they should have to pay to make an unnecessary commute - significantly cutting their disposable income - at a time when they are already facing sharply increasing bills for gas, electricity and food - is insane.
Which, sadly, isn't surprising, from Boris.
As for all the suffering coffee and sandwich makers - get a different job?
That's the standard Tory advice. How can it be wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *V-Alice OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Ayr |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
Don't know if you saw article on BBC in regards to the recent energy Price Cap increase?
BBC News - Is the energy price cap wrong?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-61078975
The average figure is based on a property being vacated during the day, not working at home with heating, lights and computers switched on.
I International Energy Agency said late last week that "to cause pain to Putin", people of Europe and the UK should work from home.
This apparently with save 120 ships of crude oil per year with no allowance included for additional gas and gas based electricity generation.
Considering that when in the office, there is communal heating and lighting meaning where there are 30 people in the office, 30x boilers and lights at home are not consuming energy.
OfGEM have now admitted they have grossly underestimated 'average annual' consumption of £1971 due to heating being switched on at home during the winter. Although winter has been milder this year, it is still adding to significant costs.
I don't know anyone working from home where their gas and electricity consumption has not risen by at least 30% due to being home all day.
If you are or have been working from home, speak to your employer, accountant or HMRC in respect to tax rebates.
You can claim against bills and costs in relation to working at home costs and allowances."
Worth a look. I don't work from home - I can't.
But IF you can, just as productively, you should be able to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.
Working from home was a temporary measure during the pandemic. Everything else has gone back to “normal” and so should all workers. Hybrid working is a more normalised concept where you have three (Tuesday/Wednesday/Friday) in the office and Monday and Friday at home. "
That just normalises the thought process that working from home is just a skive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"That’s ok as long as the London centric workers who get paid the uplift for travel and London prices give them up
Look at the state of places like DVLA and the home office who say that they can work from home no one can seem to get anything done these days because they are out of the office  "
Wrong!
London weighting is not to cover cost of travel it is to cover the higher cost of everything including housing in the South East.
You clearly have an issue with people WFH and keep spouting myths about productivity. Numerous research studies have actually shown that the vast majority of people are more productive working from home.
This is the 21st century and we have a thing called the internet. It is pretty amazing. You are on it now! For computer and telephone based office jobs there is no reason why with decent tech you cannot effectively WFH.
The issues you cite such as DVLA were actually caused by staff being forced into the offices in Wales causing Covid outbreaks and then staff shortages resulting in backlogs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I can't but I don't begrudge the ability to those who can, and do.
JRM, clearly, disagrees. Is his attitude going to lead to a test case in court? I think it might.
If someone can prove they can do the job at least as well from home, why should they be forced to travel - costing them time and money - unless it's absolutely necessary?
The money they save on travel might even balance out any increases in their utilities bills.
All that said, if there is any sort of test case - and the government loses it; they can always introduce a "working from home tax".
After all, it's not like they're averse to raising them.. Your work place is usually defined in a contact of employer. It is difficult to see how legal action could be justified.."
Time to get into the 21st century. Tech companies stopped defining place of work in contracts years ago. It is all task and delivery driven.
Commercial landlords (many happen to be Tory donors) are crapping themselves as companies finally wake up to the reality that they don’t need huge amounts of office space. In future they will rent less sq m and have less desks and more collaborative spaces. Hybrid working will be the norm.
If govt and landlords are smart they will revitalise all that vacant city centre office space to recreate urban communities with housing. People can live closer to work avoiding commute costs/time and impact on environment (and pop into office for workshops when necessary and WFH rest of time etc). These communities will need shops, cafes, doctors, schools etc creating employment.
Collaborative tools (with IM) make it actually easier to catch up with colleagues and ask a quick question. Both your posts are outdated myths stuck in 1950s work practices. Time to modernise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
Well we officially have it from the mouth of Johnson as to why he wants people back in the office….
… because when he works from home, he gets distracted by cheese in the fridge!!!!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Well we officially have it from the mouth of Johnson as to why he wants people back in the office….
… because when he works from home, he gets distracted by cheese in the fridge!!!!! "
To be fair, he needs to eat the contents of the fridge so he can fit inside when he hides |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed"
20% is a ridiculous amount. This company will save on reduced office rental space and utility costs. Are they honestly trying to say commuting costs amount to 20% of gross income? Jokers! Hope that fully backfires on them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
20% is a ridiculous amount. This company will save on reduced office rental space and utility costs. Are they honestly trying to say commuting costs amount to 20% of gross income? Jokers! Hope that fully backfires on them."
It did seem a lot and as I say not sure they have thought about the extra energy home workers will use. Still that's their offer to their staff. It would be interesting to see if many take it up and also how it affects the company's ability to recruit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
20% is a ridiculous amount. This company will save on reduced office rental space and utility costs. Are they honestly trying to say commuting costs amount to 20% of gross income? Jokers! Hope that fully backfires on them.
It did seem a lot and as I say not sure they have thought about the extra energy home workers will use. Still that's their offer to their staff. It would be interesting to see if many take it up and also how it affects the company's ability to recruit"
I can only guess it's a trade off for "flexibility". Tbh, I'd need a payrise to work from home. My cheese bill goes thru the roof. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *landAnnCouple
over a year ago
Inverness |
INSURANCE
Obviously I haven't read each & every post above word for word... but nowhere do I see anyone asking or commenting on the insurance implications of working from home.
If you work from home using laptop/computer/printer etc, provided by your employer and, for example, the laptop overheats and sets YOUR house on fire... who pays??
Is your home insurance going to pay up?
Unlikely.
Is your employer going to pay up?
Unlikely
Are employers and employees just bumbling along... hoping it doesn't happen.....?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
Look I don’t care if people WFH, it’s made my commute far easier than before 1 hr journey pre pandemic is now a 20 min drive to my workplace. Parking is way easy and less queues at shops.
Long may it continue.
Tories just want to make people suffer. Especially that slob of a PM. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
20% is a ridiculous amount. This company will save on reduced office rental space and utility costs. Are they honestly trying to say commuting costs amount to 20% of gross income? Jokers! Hope that fully backfires on them.
It did seem a lot and as I say not sure they have thought about the extra energy home workers will use. Still that's their offer to their staff. It would be interesting to see if many take it up and also how it affects the company's ability to recruitI can only guess it's a trade off for "flexibility". Tbh, I'd need a payrise to work from home. My cheese bill goes thru the roof. "
Flexibility of a kind. I think it only refers to those that want to work at home all the time as opposed to those that go to the office a few times a week |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
Odd how at the hight of the pandemic a govt minister was allowed to "work from home " on a nice Caribbean island with no sensure from bojo or reece mog sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
If someone has a mortgage do they have to inform their mortgage company that their home is now a place of business?
Same as the insurance company/ council ?
You can bet most will not have because it would have cost them money |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If someone has a mortgage do they have to inform their mortgage company that their home is now a place of business?
Same as the insurance company/ council ?
You can bet most will not have because it would have cost them money "
Unless you have visitors at your home , store goods, offering services such as beauty treatments then the insurance is the same |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
20% is a ridiculous amount. This company will save on reduced office rental space and utility costs. Are they honestly trying to say commuting costs amount to 20% of gross income? Jokers! Hope that fully backfires on them."
You're thinking about it too ‘one dimensionally’. The 20% is not a fair balance. It is not designed to be. They have also offered hybrid model 2wfh/3 office at NO salary reduction. But the leaders of the company clearly have a preferred model. So the punitive reduction is design to encourage certain behaviour. This is a law firm after all - so all parties will know the terms and the basis of contractual negotiation. So I don’t think they are being entirely unreasonable. People are free to negotiate their terms and accept what works for them or walk away.
I say this as someone who’s worked a mixture of long term wfh, hybrid and on site for 20 years. There are pros and cons for all three. There is not one size fits all for either the work, project, business or employee. Adaptability and flexibility is the key. But it all depends on hiring the right type of people, developing the tight type of culture and also making sure team members have the tools and processes to be effective regardless of where they need to choose to work from.
Personally i prefer a 40/60 split. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *landAnnCouple
over a year ago
Inverness |
"If someone has a mortgage do they have to inform their mortgage company that their home is now a place of business?
Same as the insurance company/ council ?
You can bet most will not have because it would have cost them money
Unless you have visitors at your home , store goods, offering services such as beauty treatments then the insurance is the same "
_________
But... if you're using equipment bought and supplied / provided to you by a 3rd party ie your employer.. which causes damage to YOUR property... who pays up?
A solicitor on Radio Scotland on Friday said he thought it most likely that ordinary home insurance would NOT automatically include such cover.
I don't work from home so doesn't affect me directly, but maybe those who do now work from home should take the time to think about the insurance implications?
___________ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
20% is a ridiculous amount. This company will save on reduced office rental space and utility costs. Are they honestly trying to say commuting costs amount to 20% of gross income? Jokers! Hope that fully backfires on them.
You're thinking about it too ‘one dimensionally’. The 20% is not a fair balance. It is not designed to be. They have also offered hybrid model 2wfh/3 office at NO salary reduction. But the leaders of the company clearly have a preferred model. So the punitive reduction is design to encourage certain behaviour. This is a law firm after all - so all parties will know the terms and the basis of contractual negotiation. So I don’t think they are being entirely unreasonable. People are free to negotiate their terms and accept what works for them or walk away.
I say this as someone who’s worked a mixture of long term wfh, hybrid and on site for 20 years. There are pros and cons for all three. There is not one size fits all for either the work, project, business or employee. Adaptability and flexibility is the key. But it all depends on hiring the right type of people, developing the tight type of culture and also making sure team members have the tools and processes to be effective regardless of where they need to choose to work from.
Personally i prefer a 40/60 split. "
I wasn’t thinking one dimensionally but thanks anyway. I had no idea who the company in question is but was commenting purely on 20% being a ridiculous amount. Of course the company is steering employees towards their preferred outcome. The original post made no mention of hybrid working just WFH.
I agree with you that hybrid is preferred and flexibility is key. However, in my experience, enforced splits are not helpful. It is better to work a model reflecting a needs basis (on projects this is easier than BAU). So you may have a few weeks where a high level of collaboration is needed (workshops etc) but then a period where work can effectively be delivered with little F2F using tech for meetings, catch ups etc.
If people are task/delivery/deadline focused rather than time focused or presenteeism, they tend to be more productive. They need to be “mature” and professional and you soon discover who is not delivering.
I have worked that way for maybe 15yrs. I don’t care if my teams decide to have a slack Friday and maybe make up that time over the weekend as long as they hit their “Monday” deadline.
Happy to say my programme and project teams have all been highly effective. That’s why I am paid the big bucks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Completely agree with the flexible approach. Been working that way since 2001. In that entire period only once had a designated office where fixed hours were mandated. Travel to where the work is needed only WHEN that’s needed.
A few years ago before the pandemic travelled internationally to a face to face meeting - only for the organiser to have failed to book a large enough conference room. So you had the farcical position of people having co-located at great expense only for half the participants to be sat at hot-desks ‘dialling’ into the meeting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What a load of tish i WFH mostly have a split and i work just as hard from home and am very productive in my role , teams make it super easy to communicate and collaborate with colleagues so the interaction is still there , certainly would not be appropriate for my employer to attempt any sort of pay cut as i have seen suggested recently |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Pretty sure the cut from the London firm was to compensate for loading due to inherent costs of living in the city (I believe they took people on through the pandemic who lived outside the city) so they're scaling the pay for people who live outside of London and wish to remain WFH
With the concern regarding carbon footprint etc I'd argue that dragging me back to the office would only increasy carbon footprint (commuting) for no met increase in output
As always the best choice is to present choices to people as opposed to forcing people into doing things 1 specific way unless there's a compelling argument to do things 1 particular way (which in this instance, as in most instances, there is not) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
I think we are missing a good point here,
Whilst most office jobs are mainly concentrated in the south.
WFH gives companies the ability to hire people outside these catchment areas, so the midlands or the north get jobs which normally would have been difficult to access.
The tories have inadvertently levelled up jobs, why ain’t they celebrating it? Instead of trying to level jobs down again?
We need to embrace this new economy, and figure out ways to maximise these new business opportunities to ensure we are the forefront.
Every time the UK tries to get ahead of the curve, vested interests try to stifle our innovation, then we end up catching up to our competitors and as a result we are left blaming ourselves for missing the chances which would have made us a powerhouse.
Look for some like me I don’t have the chance to WFH, but even I know the potential for transforming the economy into something which is far stronger And fit for purpose in the future.
Time to get past the rhetoric, and follow the money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed"
Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue.
Two people can’t be paid differently for delivering the same output as it would be discriminatory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"I think we are missing a good point here,
Whilst most office jobs are mainly concentrated in the south.
WFH gives companies the ability to hire people outside these catchment areas, so the midlands or the north get jobs which normally would have been difficult to access.
The tories have inadvertently levelled up jobs, why ain’t they celebrating it? Instead of trying to level jobs down again?
We need to embrace this new economy, and figure out ways to maximise these new business opportunities to ensure we are the forefront.
Every time the UK tries to get ahead of the curve, vested interests try to stifle our innovation, then we end up catching up to our competitors and as a result we are left blaming ourselves for missing the chances which would have made us a powerhouse.
Look for some like me I don’t have the chance to WFH, but even I know the potential for transforming the economy into something which is far stronger And fit for purpose in the future.
Time to get past the rhetoric, and follow the money."
Ahem, it is a long thread but I refer you to my first post three weeks ago near the top...
“For businesses whose staff can WFH there are huge downstream benefits including downsizing your office rental space and being able to recruit staff on a national rather than local/regional level.”
This has the potential to somewhat alter house prices by region also.
Super fast reliable broadband will be key. While I couldn’t stand Corbyn and people laughed at his broadband manifesto pledge, kind of looks rather prescient now  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AFKA HovisMan
over a year ago
Sindon Swingdon Swindon |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue.
Two people can’t be paid differently for delivering the same output as it would be discriminatory. "
isnt that what London weighting does? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue.
Two people can’t be paid differently for delivering the same output as it would be discriminatory. isnt that what London weighting does? "
Yes, but as was stated above and by its. Wet name, London Weighting is a reflection of the increased cost of living in London - particularly housing. As I understand there is no challenge to the concept of London Weighting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JB1954Man
over a year ago
Reading |
My thought on this WHF. A company that I am dealing with . Now only does phone appointments. This has meant delays of getting an appointment . Reason , Someone takes my call. Details taken . Forwarded to someone to sort out and then relevant
person given information to contact me. I have had phone conversation. But now waiting for letter for over a week. This for me to sign / return. Before when having home visit . Letter was sent within a few days.
Like banks etc. Closing branches so difficult to see people in person. Lots of cost saving to companies. But detrimental to customer service.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ertwoCouple
over a year ago
omagh |
"That’s ok as long as the London centric workers who get paid the uplift for travel and London prices give them up
Look at the state of places like DVLA and the home office who say that they can work from home no one can seem to get anything done these days because they are out of the office "
Yea a few problems with so called working from home. Lazy feckers will abuse it. Next they will want new computors at home and printers and loads of statonary. desks and electric. They will have heaters running in rest of house all winter. etc etc.And no one to check if they are doing any work. If they dont want to work step a side and let new workers in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think we are missing a good point here,
Whilst most office jobs are mainly concentrated in the south.
WFH gives companies the ability to hire people outside these catchment areas, so the midlands or the north get jobs which normally would have been difficult to access.
The tories have inadvertently levelled up jobs, why ain’t they celebrating it? Instead of trying to level jobs down again?
We need to embrace this new economy, and figure out ways to maximise these new business opportunities to ensure we are the forefront.
Every time the UK tries to get ahead of the curve, vested interests try to stifle our innovation, then we end up catching up to our competitors and as a result we are left blaming ourselves for missing the chances which would have made us a powerhouse.
Look for some like me I don’t have the chance to WFH, but even I know the potential for transforming the economy into something which is far stronger And fit for purpose in the future.
Time to get past the rhetoric, and follow the money."
Tech companies have been doing that for years. I was asked to move up north for an office years ago. Told them to stuck it and jumped ship. They closed the souther office and mids offices to save money. In the end much of the work went ip north for what remained in the UK and offshore for the rest.
Good that they create jobs for new hires up north. But the whole stunt backfired as hardly any of the existing workforce wanted to move. Easier yo jump ship and stay down south.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue.
Two people can’t be paid differently for delivering the same output as it would be discriminatory. "
Are you sire about this? Many employment contracts stipulate location, hours etc - not just duties. And at least in the private sector it is not unheard of for renumeration to be confidential as you can have new hires in a competitive market paid more for same jib as those already there. Unfair maybe, but that’s capitalism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you want to start working from home then you have to re negotiate your contract
"
Unless your contract already has such flexible provision. Not everyone’s contract was written in 1863 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue."
That's not true. Most employees are paid for the hours they work. It's all down to the employment contract, and the vast majority say 'salary of £xx,000 for a 40 hour week'. There's almost never a clause in the contract which states how productive you need to be.
If the employer thinks that attendance at work is important, they are entitled to pay people according to whether they attend or not. In front of a tribunal, if the employer can come up with any half-arsed reason why attending is better than not doing so, they can claim that the company values attendance and therefore pays accordingly. That's a not unreasonable business decision, and it doesn't discriminate against a protected group. They'll win easily. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue.
That's not true. Most employees are paid for the hours they work. It's all down to the employment contract, and the vast majority say 'salary of £xx,000 for a 40 hour week'. There's almost never a clause in the contract which states how productive you need to be.
If the employer thinks that attendance at work is important, they are entitled to pay people according to whether they attend or not. In front of a tribunal, if the employer can come up with any half-arsed reason why attending is better than not doing so, they can claim that the company values attendance and therefore pays accordingly. That's a not unreasonable business decision, and it doesn't discriminate against a protected group. They'll win easily."
Times are changing and as has been said repeatedly on this thread, the tech sector have led the way.
Contracts often no longer state place or hours/time of work. They talk about delivery of tasks and hitting deadlines.
While there has to be flexibility for any required collaboration, why does it matter if someone has a relaxed Friday and then works in their PJs Saturday as long as they hit the Monday deadline delivering the required quality? You soon discover who isn’t pulling their weight.
It requires trust from management and professionalism from staff. Most people are conscientious. There will always be the odd slacker. They actually get outed more quickly when measured on delivery/tasks then just being in the office for set hours! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue.
That's not true. Most employees are paid for the hours they work. It's all down to the employment contract, and the vast majority say 'salary of £xx,000 for a 40 hour week'. There's almost never a clause in the contract which states how productive you need to be.
If the employer thinks that attendance at work is important, they are entitled to pay people according to whether they attend or not. In front of a tribunal, if the employer can come up with any half-arsed reason why attending is better than not doing so, they can claim that the company values attendance and therefore pays accordingly. That's a not unreasonable business decision, and it doesn't discriminate against a protected group. They'll win easily.
Times are changing and as has been said repeatedly on this thread, the tech sector have led the way.
Contracts often no longer state place or hours/time of work. They talk about delivery of tasks and hitting deadlines.
While there has to be flexibility for any required collaboration, why does it matter if someone has a relaxed Friday and then works in their PJs Saturday as long as they hit the Monday deadline delivering the required quality? You soon discover who isn’t pulling their weight.
It requires trust from management and professionalism from staff. Most people are conscientious. There will always be the odd slacker. They actually get outed more quickly when measured on delivery/tasks then just being in the office for set hours!"
True contractors should not be considered employees any more though. If hours and location are stipulated they are employees not contractors |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Times are changing and as has been said repeatedly on this thread, the tech sector have led the way."
The tech sector has lead the way in this because of the IR35 rules. HMRC see that having specific working times means that you are "inside IR35". Payment by task or work package can be "outside IR35". Since "outside" is more tax efficient for both sides, that's the way that employment contracts are going.
I agree with you that many companies could, and should, relax the attendance rules dramatically. But any employee trying to use employment law to force the issue is going to fail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Times are changing and as has been said repeatedly on this thread, the tech sector have led the way.
The tech sector has lead the way in this because of the IR35 rules. HMRC see that having specific working times means that you are "inside IR35". Payment by task or work package can be "outside IR35". Since "outside" is more tax efficient for both sides, that's the way that employment contracts are going.
I agree with you that many companies could, and should, relax the attendance rules dramatically. But any employee trying to use employment law to force the issue is going to fail."
Stupidly I forgot about the IR35 driver but yes a major reason. However, not the only reason as these type of contracts have been commonplace in tech firms in USA for a while and the concept has been imported. Certainly helps with inside/outside determination, unless the company is stupid enough to make blanket decision! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Times are changing and as has been said repeatedly on this thread, the tech sector have led the way.
The tech sector has lead the way in this because of the IR35 rules. HMRC see that having specific working times means that you are "inside IR35". Payment by task or work package can be "outside IR35". Since "outside" is more tax efficient for both sides, that's the way that employment contracts are going.
I agree with you that many companies could, and should, relax the attendance rules dramatically. But any employee trying to use employment law to force the issue is going to fail."
Surely contract law that would be used to enforce and not employment law? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"If you want to start working from home then you have to re negotiate your contract
Unless your contract already has such flexible provision. Not everyone’s contract was written in 1863 "
If someone’s contract involves the facility to work from home then that’s fine but you cannot just mandate to work from home unless the company agrees to it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"If you want to start working from home then you have to re negotiate your contract
Unless your contract already has such flexible provision. Not everyone’s contract was written in 1863
If someone’s contract involves the facility to work from home then that’s fine but you cannot just mandate to work from home unless the company agrees to it "
Most companies are waking up to the modern era and realising there are benefits to the company and the worker of enabling WFH for computer and telephone based office type roles.
It was going to happen anyway but has been accelerated by the pandemic.
As has been said, flexibility (on both sides) is the key. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But any employee trying to use employment law to force the issue is going to fail."
"Surely contract law that would be used to enforce and not employment law? "
I was responding to someone up above that said "people can’t be paid differently for delivering the same output". They were suggesting paying different rates for attendance and WFH would be unlawful under employment law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"But any employee trying to use employment law to force the issue is going to fail.
Surely contract law that would be used to enforce and not employment law?
I was responding to someone up above that said "people can’t be paid differently for delivering the same output". They were suggesting paying different rates for attendance and WFH would be unlawful under employment law."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"If you want to start working from home then you have to re negotiate your contract
Unless your contract already has such flexible provision. Not everyone’s contract was written in 1863
If someone’s contract involves the facility to work from home then that’s fine but you cannot just mandate to work from home unless the company agrees to it
Most companies are waking up to the modern era and realising there are benefits to the company and the worker of enabling WFH for computer and telephone based office type roles.
It was going to happen anyway but has been accelerated by the pandemic.
As has been said, flexibility (on both sides) is the key."
Some jobs will suit it but most will not but we shall just have to see |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Most won't want to work from home during next winter. The heating and electric will cost too much. "
True enough, choices...
Spend £000s on heating and power or
Spend £000s on commuting
Good times for people!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Most won't want to work from home during next winter. The heating and electric will cost too much.
True enough, choices...
Spend £000s on heating and power or
Spend £000s on commuting
Good times for people! "
Were people expecting some form of WFH dividend? They want to save on the commute coats and ancillaries but also pocket that and have someone else pay for the home heating costs? Sounds to me that in that scenario people should set up a business rather than be employees. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"There is at least one large company (forget the name) that will allow employees to work from home full time if they agree to a 20% pay cut. I assume it's to do with no travel costs but of course their energy costs will go up so not sure if that has been taken into account. Also yet to hear how many have agreed
Not sure that this would be lawful if tested in court.
Employees are paid for productive output, not for working at a particular venue.
Two people can’t be paid differently for delivering the same output as it would be discriminatory. "
I don't know the legal side of it but some other posters here have come up with suggestions as to why the company in question can do it which seem reasonable. I would add that this is only for those working every day at home so does not affect those going in a few times a week. Also it is only if the employee chooses to accept the conditions on offer. No one is being forced |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
"That’s ok as long as the London centric workers who get paid the uplift for travel and London prices give them up
Look at the state of places like DVLA and the home office who say that they can work from home no one can seem to get anything done these days because they are out of the office
Yea a few problems with so called working from home. Lazy feckers will abuse it. Next they will want new computors at home and printers and loads of statonary. desks and electric. They will have heaters running in rest of house all winter. etc etc.And no one to check if they are doing any work. If they dont want to work step a side and let new workers in. "
I know for a fact you get lazy workers even in the office setting, god the amount of people I have worked with who didn't pull their weight in that setting also was astounding.
I think being a lazy worker isn't confined to one arena or another, its who some people are.
Of course you will get people complaining about bad equipment regardless of whether you are at home or at the office, and heating and stationary. That's people generally.
I completely reject that entire argument regarding monitoring, if you work in a place which expects an output for something you will have systems which produces reports and stuff. Clearly people don't understand the volume of information on the performance of work that management collects on its employees. I believe there is more in WFH situation because of the technology perhaps.
What I think is that those who are actually lazy within an office setting are being exposed for the frauds that they really are in a WFH environment, because their day to day work is now being monitored more.
It could be that some of these people who want to return the office miss when they were under less scrutiny, when they could slip under the cracks of the organisation, waiting to collect their pension.
But what speaks more is the general laziness of the Slob in No 10, he was talking from his experience as the laziest PM in history. Because it feels that he is better convincing people of his BS in person than over zoom.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
"I reckon workplace discipline cases have reduced since the work from home came into effect. From tardiness to sexual harassment cases."
Which is a positive benefit.
Maybe our Slob of a PM need people to return to work, because he is looking to have another work place affair perhaps and replace his current wife.
I think JRM wants people to return to work, because he cannot handle have his family around him 24/7 and he needs to escape them.
There have been many cases where lockdown tested the limits of relationships and unfortunately there has been a massive spike in divorces as a result.
Considering that JRM would need a papal decree to get a divorce, that is going to cost him lots of money, he would rather find a cheaper alternative, which is what tories do best, spend other peoples money to fix their problems.
I wouldn't put it past him. He seems the type.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
none of it will make any difference whatsoever.... we will all still be sat on the phone listening to the carousel go round of which number to press to speak to whoever until finally we get told all the answers are on the website (the truth is they aren't) and we get booted out of the call
the unobtainable state does not care about customers or service
all the unobtainable state cares about is taking your money off you and learning new ways to hide behind a cyber wall more efficiently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
"none of it will make any difference whatsoever.... we will all still be sat on the phone listening to the carousel go round of which number to press to speak to whoever until finally we get told all the answers are on the website (the truth is they aren't) and we get booted out of the call
the unobtainable state does not care about customers or service
all the unobtainable state cares about is taking your money off you and learning new ways to hide behind a cyber wall more efficiently."
Damn right, doesn't matter if the person on the end of line is either in an office or WFH, you still cannot get through to them.
But that is another set of problems, the declining standards in customer service these days. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *00STERMan
over a year ago
nearby |
The teams that I manage are the n Spain, Mexico and the US and the teams are mixed from each of the places - even if I was in an office I would still be on video calls for all my meetings. There is no difference to me working in an office or working from home - other than not getting bugged by stupid irrelevant chit chat and the coffee grinder going every 6 mins .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"I reckon workplace discipline cases have reduced since the work from home came into effect. From tardiness to sexual harassment cases.
Which is a positive benefit.
Maybe our Slob of a PM need people to return to work, because he is looking to have another work place affair perhaps and replace his current wife.
I think JRM wants people to return to work, because he cannot handle have his family around him 24/7 and he needs to escape them.
There have been many cases where lockdown tested the limits of relationships and unfortunately there has been a massive spike in divorces as a result.
Considering that JRM would need a papal decree to get a divorce, that is going to cost him lots of money, he would rather find a cheaper alternative, which is what tories do best, spend other peoples money to fix their problems.
I wouldn't put it past him. He seems the type.
"
you do talk some rubbish how do you know about his family life? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Employers should be free to decide if they want their employees to work from home or office. Every industry is different and impact of wfh varies between sectors, job types and experience. If a company things that wfh is a net postive all things considered, they will allow for wfh or even enforce it. If a company feels that the overall impact is net negative, they will enforce employees to work from office.
I personally love going to office. I prefer meeting people face to face, having lunch together, conversations over coffee etc. I do feel that at least new joinees in a company should spend some time in office with colleagues. We have an optional wfh. Two new joinees in my team. One comes to office while the other does wfh. The guy who comes to office didn't take much time to get accustomed to our work while the guy doing wfh is still struggling. Having a mentor sitting right next obviously helped. He didn't have to schedule a meeting to ask questions which randomly pop-up when he is working. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
Exactly it's down to the employer not the employee if they can work from home or not.
There seems to be a lot of people who rhink they can just change things to suit themselves.
If someone is not happy doing what the boss wants then they are perfectly free to seek other employment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bernathCouple
over a year ago
Gloucestershire |
"I reckon workplace discipline cases have reduced since the work from home came into effect. From tardiness to sexual harassment cases.
Which is a positive benefit.
Maybe our Slob of a PM need people to return to work, because he is looking to have another work place affair perhaps and replace his current wife.
I think JRM wants people to return to work, because he cannot handle have his family around him 24/7 and he needs to escape them.
There have been many cases where lockdown tested the limits of relationships and unfortunately there has been a massive spike in divorces as a result.
Considering that JRM would need a papal decree to get a divorce, that is going to cost him lots of money, he would rather find a cheaper alternative, which is what tories do best, spend other peoples money to fix their problems.
I wouldn't put it past him. He seems the type.
you do talk some rubbish how do you know about his family life?"
not as a much as you though!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Exactly it's down to the employer not the employee if they can work from home or not.
There seems to be a lot of people who rhink they can just change things to suit themselves.
If someone is not happy doing what the boss wants then they are perfectly free to seek other employment "
A good company will want to keep their employees happy , a happy worker is a productive worker |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Exactly it's down to the employer not the employee if they can work from home or not.
There seems to be a lot of people who rhink they can just change things to suit themselves.
If someone is not happy doing what the boss wants then they are perfectly free to seek other employment
A good company will want to keep their employees happy , a happy worker is a productive worker "
A good company wants to keep the company running successfully against its competitors. Sure keeping the employees happy is a part of it. But there are limits to it. Of course, employees will be happy if the company gives 3 months off every year. It doesn't mean they should do it. It's upto the employer to decide what works for the company and what doesn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Exactly it's down to the employer not the employee if they can work from home or not.
There seems to be a lot of people who rhink they can just change things to suit themselves.
If someone is not happy doing what the boss wants then they are perfectly free to seek other employment
A good company will want to keep their employees happy , a happy worker is a productive worker
A good company wants to keep the company running successfully against its competitors. Sure keeping the employees happy is a part of it. But there are limits to it. Of course, employees will be happy if the company gives 3 months off every year. It doesn't mean they should do it. It's upto the employer to decide what works for the company and what doesn't."
It is a balance, if you want the ‘best’ people then you keep them happy, a high turnover of staff isn’t good for any company |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Exactly it's down to the employer not the employee if they can work from home or not.
There seems to be a lot of people who rhink they can just change things to suit themselves.
If someone is not happy doing what the boss wants then they are perfectly free to seek other employment
A good company will want to keep their employees happy , a happy worker is a productive worker
A good company wants to keep the company running successfully against its competitors. Sure keeping the employees happy is a part of it. But there are limits to it. Of course, employees will be happy if the company gives 3 months off every year. It doesn't mean they should do it. It's upto the employer to decide what works for the company and what doesn't.
It is a balance, if you want the ‘best’ people then you keep them happy, a high turnover of staff isn’t good for any company "
Depends on the type of job and its demand supply. Some jobs are in high demand with lots if people available to do it. In such case, employers can enforce it, if they really feel that working from office is net positive for them. The reverse is true in some cases where employees have an upper hand.
You are correct that it's all about balance. But the balance is different for every situation and the employers are in the best position to decide what's the correct balance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Exactly it's down to the employer not the employee if they can work from home or not.
There seems to be a lot of people who rhink they can just change things to suit themselves.
If someone is not happy doing what the boss wants then they are perfectly free to seek other employment
A good company will want to keep their employees happy , a happy worker is a productive worker
A good company wants to keep the company running successfully against its competitors. Sure keeping the employees happy is a part of it. But there are limits to it. Of course, employees will be happy if the company gives 3 months off every year. It doesn't mean they should do it. It's upto the employer to decide what works for the company and what doesn't.
It is a balance, if you want the ‘best’ people then you keep them happy, a high turnover of staff isn’t good for any company
Depends on the type of job and its demand supply. Some jobs are in high demand with lots if people available to do it. In such case, employers can enforce it, if they really feel that working from office is net positive for them. The reverse is true in some cases where employees have an upper hand.
You are correct that it's all about balance. But the balance is different for every situation and the employers are in the best position to decide what's the correct balance."
That is true, obviously some jobs aren’t suitable for WFH, the world is rapidly changing though, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
The ebb and flow of this thread is interesting. Seems now people are implying that employees are refusing to come back into the office or demanding right to WFH?
Not my experience but maybe others have different experience (don’t believe the bullshit commercial landlord driven narrative in the papers).
What I have seen is plenty of organisations exploring a more flexible/hybrid model as it is recognised that there are benefits for both employer and employee.
Not sure why people are getting knickers in a twist. This was all going to happen eventually once the internet got invented. It has just been accelerated by the pandemic.
We reached a step change point in time more quickly because of that. Something as fundamental to a change in working practices as the advent of the industrial revolution that moved people away from a predominantly agrarian or artisan style of work to factory based mass production. People used to work locally, then started travelling to work, now certain roles will go back to being local. Eventually the supporting infrastructure around all that will adjust also.
It is just progress. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The ebb and flow of this thread is interesting. Seems now people are implying that employees are refusing to come back into the office or demanding right to WFH?
Not my experience but maybe others have different experience (don’t believe the bullshit commercial landlord driven narrative in the papers).
What I have seen is plenty of organisations exploring a more flexible/hybrid model as it is recognised that there are benefits for both employer and employee.
Not sure why people are getting knickers in a twist. This was all going to happen eventually once the internet got invented. It has just been accelerated by the pandemic.
We reached a step change point in time more quickly because of that. Something as fundamental to a change in working practices as the advent of the industrial revolution that moved people away from a predominantly agrarian or artisan style of work to factory based mass production. People used to work locally, then started travelling to work, now certain roles will go back to being local. Eventually the supporting infrastructure around all that will adjust also.
It is just progress."
Agree with most of it. Unfortunately there are extreme fringes on both sides. I work in a place where remote working is optional. There are certain remote workers who literally hate people working from office because they just assume that people work from office so that they can get friendly with managers and it will affect them.
There are some employees who actually are demanding wfh if the employer doesn't let them to. There are certain situations where remote only works, certain situations where hybrid works, other situations where office only works. We just have to be mature and see how companies adapt instead of fighting over it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
