Workplace Forcing People Back to Office

poochi on 15/12/2020 - 12:11
Last edited 15/12/2020 - 12:25 by 1 other user

I work in a large government agency. Staff have been working from home since May. It was recently decreed that everyone is expected to work from the office at least 60% of the time next year.

Management have ignored all the benefits that have become apparent from WFH, such as improved mental and physical wellbeing, saving time and money on public transport, increased flexibility, etc., all the while maintaining (if not improving) productivity and staying safe.

Practical matters such as staff needing to take crowded public transport back to work or caring for family members more vulnerable to Covid have been ignored.

Anyone else work for an organisation that likes to claim it's modern and progressive while being the exact opposite?

Education & Work

Comments

        • field1985 on 16/12/2020 - 14:26
          +1

          I see the sheep don't like being called out. If they had a point they would reply, not sheepishly downvote the comment.

          • Ti-au on 16/12/2020 - 19:17

            @field1985: yes because BIg Unions are apparently the solution to the problem……

            Of course it was the Big Unions who signed illegal workplace agreements with Big Biz.

            The IT industry which has been at the forefront of working from home (along with the highest wages) is one of the least unionised workplaces.

          • Laurana on 17/12/2020 - 21:49

            @field1985: I didn’t neg you, but I assume people didn’t bother responding to you due to the absurdity of your statement.

            The reality is that until the law changes, the employer has the right to demand that its employees work in the office as long as they can provide a safe environment.

            It’s not being a sheep to comply with the law and keep a job to support your family and put food on the table. You can comply with the law whilst working towards changing it.

            Some of us can also see the benefits of working in the office. When you are a part of a team, the collaboration is just not the same virtually. That’s a fact. Some teams might make it work, but I’m willing to bet that’s not the norm. I don’t think that necessarily means that things need to go back to 100% in the office for 38 hrs/week, but it’s also silly to pretend that there are no drawbacks for an employer.

            • Ti-au on 18/12/2020 - 11:41
              +1

              @Laurana: I tend to agree with Elon Musk - a lot of meetings are a waste of time.

              Much better for bosses Not be vague in requirements, to review progress and then add constructive tips and keep out of the way - as the company literally pays money for employees to do work, not to be in meetings.

              Of course that means trusting employees. But really if you can't trust them, why are you paying them?

              For most it should be 4 days wfh & 1 day in office. Limit 1 day for meetings and productivity would soar.

            • field1985 on 18/12/2020 - 13:40

              @Laurana: "When you are a part of a team, the collaboration is just not the same virtually."

              I completely agree. It removes the wasted time. It may take time to adapt and learn how to use the right tools, but any team that works on computers 9-5 is way more efficient doing it remotely.

              I'm still waiting for an example of why you physically need to be in the same location to collaborate.

              Virtually (pardon the pun) everything you can do in the same room; post it notes, brainstorming, whiteboarding, face to face, etc, etc can easily and more cheaply be replicated in the virtual space.

              Where the benefits compound (instant responses, geographically dispersed but more talented team, available anytime, can be recorded/reviewed for those absent, no long personal chats, etc, etc).

              Employers do have the right to demand people return to the office, but I suspect those that do will suffer a huge brain drain and loose their most talented staff who can now find better conditions elsewhere. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

              • Laurana on 18/12/2020 - 20:47

                @field1985: I didn’t say that you needed to be in the same location to collaborate. I said that the way the collaboration works is different. It’s good in a lot of ways, yes. But bad in others. There’s a lot less opportunity for team bonding (which we value), not as instant responses, harder to train staff, some people have internet problems, people don’t express themselves as much over video or phone, it’s harder to gauge facial/body expressions, and back to back virtual meetings can be such a drag. Good managers can implement systems to make those negatives into positives but not everyone is a good manager so they hated it.

                Do note that I’m with you, here. I’d love to have a wfh time in the office mix. I agree with the benefits of it and it’s where we should head. Work should be about performance and outcomes not about bums in x seat for y hours between y and z times. But I would not want a 100% wfh full time approach. I loved it during the shut down but I would hate 100% wfh permanently. It wouldn’t work for me. And it didn’t work for many others.

                Also, I can tell you for a fact that we’re not losing our most talented staff because of the lack of wfh. At least not so far and we’ve been back in the office since early Sept. This is because they’re getting paid a great salary and being rewarded in other ways. Mind you, if that becomes the norm then it will definitely be interesting to see which direction my employer will head and how it will play out.

  • morse on 16/12/2020 - 03:28
    +3

    Yes, gov employee here too and there is a push in our organisation to get more people back in the office. I had to resubmit paperwork with my ‘justification’ to wfh, even though I was prior to COVID.

    It’s probably reasonable to ask for a return to the office some of the time, depending on the role and the team. In a previous role I was expected in the office 40% of the time. I thought this was okay. Although I can see your point that perhaps there’s no need to come in at all, or maybe just once a month or something.

    I don’t have any evidence, but someone in my organisation was saying there’s been an increase in workplaces injuries since more people have been wfh - which surprises me. But if true, perhaps that’s part of it.

    It also wouldn’t surprise me if the government wants more people commuting and eating their lunch out etc to ‘stimulate the economy’ - I don’t agree with this, but it could actually be a deliberate economic strategy, which your organisation has to comply with.

    I do think we’re all being a bit too optimistic that there won’t be another wave, or at least some outbreaks prior to enough people being vaccinated. There’s probably still a small number of undiagnosed cases going around in the community. There’s still lots of people coming in from overseas, and as we’ve seen, the quarantine facilities aren’t perfect at keeping it out of the community. It seems like we’re removing a lot of the strategies to stop the spread at once and in some cases unnecessarily (eg wfh). I hope I’m wrong.

    • Ti-au on 16/12/2020 - 19:21
      +1

      If the racing/betting industry can get half a day off (Melbourne Cup) then I wouldn't be surprised if the Gov was tying to stimulate the economy.

      Hopefully when jobs are more secure people start quitting more if they can't WFH, forcing the Government's hand.

    • astarman on 17/12/2020 - 00:35

      Melb has free parking in the city- its to stimulate the economy.
      during the day, the business are dying.
      a lot of cafes, restaurnats rely on offices.

      people take for granted all the OHS desk and chairs, leg rest etc in the office.

      whos liable, if you get a back injury whilst WFH?

      • morse on 17/12/2020 - 07:50
        +1

        Our workplace has a requirement that you have to have an ergonomic safe set up at home, they make you provide evidence of your workstation, safety switches, fire alarms etc. You have to have liability insurance as well. I don’t know where the liability sits tbh, but given people have been wfh pre-covid, employers would have worked this out.

        The free parking in melb cbd is a nice idea. It absolutely a shame that those businesses are struggling, but imo not worth forcing people into the office unnecessarily for. I frequent my local cafes now more instead of the places near work, it’s an adjustment in the market. Businesses are also going to struggle because of all the unemployment to come out of this. It it is a tough time across the board, but having someone spend 1-2hrs commuting so they can buy a coffee near work won’t fix this.

        • astarman on 17/12/2020 - 10:56

          Fun fact I spoke to restaurant owners and they said the biggest difficulty was hiring staff.

          Maybe time for ppl to pick up a temp job of they're desp…

          • morse on 17/12/2020 - 12:07

            @astarman: Absolutely!

            Although I expect our problems are going to be more dire than that, especially with all the drama with exports to China. When the overall economy downturns there’s less in system across the board - businesses earning less, people earning less, people spending less, less gov revenue etc.

  • DarkOz on 16/12/2020 - 05:12
    -5

    The city cbd needs more people back to thrive again. The more people returning the better. I am in the city everyday and it’s still too empty. Too many shops are still closed and some shops are just hanging on.

    • RocketSwitch on 16/12/2020 - 09:00
      +8

      That's their problem though. People have a choice. It shouldn't ever be dictated because, oh the shops will close, let's force people to go there. What kind of thinking is that?

      • DarkOz on 16/12/2020 - 12:31

        That’s how the Sydney CBD is set up and that’s how it will work in the near future. That won’t change until the Paramatta CBD and Greater West CBD is built. Besides I am only answering the reason why people are being forced to return to the CBD to work. I am not the government nor am I a shop owner. Why all the hate?

        • Ti-au on 16/12/2020 - 19:23

          So what if it was setup like that. Before cars, the transportation network was setup for horses, no one cries about that.

          • DarkOz on 16/12/2020 - 19:31

            @Ti-au: Did the transition from horses to cars took only 6 months?

    • Shazam1 on 16/12/2020 - 09:31
      +1

      Whose bright idea was it to create a CBD?. What's the need for this overrated area.
      And why do you want people to pay for the businesses.
      They need to adapt, move.

      • squaredonut on 16/12/2020 - 11:27
        +2

        I kind of agree, the CBD or the concept of it needs to die. It just needs to be converted to another ordinary suburb and less emphasis on having so many people passing through it for work. I really just hope this is the nail in the coffin for it or even partially so it changes. In fact it would possible be beneficial for housing, no more selling points of "close to CBD and work".

      • randombrick on 16/12/2020 - 12:03

        Ok. So OP wonders why he has to return to work for no good reason - "Suck it up or find another job"

        CBD businesses have less custom. So shouldn't it be - "Suck it up or change your location or find another business"?

        • DarkOz on 16/12/2020 - 12:34

          So you think that’s what the government should tell the CBD businesses?

  • JIMB0 on 16/12/2020 - 05:44
    +4

    I still had to go into work everyday through covid despite the fact I could browse ozbargain just as well at home.

  • acersaurus on 16/12/2020 - 07:13
    +2

    You sign a contract to be in the office, so if they want you in some of the time fair enough.

    In reality if employees value WFH they will gravitate to employers who offer it, people like OP might be tempted to look for a purely WFH job. It is potentially worth a lot of money to employees - 20k a year or more to some (in time and money) so in future employers will more often need to offer it to attract and retain the best staff they can get. Employers will pay a price for not offering it.

    • JayEmmGee on 16/12/2020 - 08:45

      Can't remember ever seeing anything in my contract about working location

      • FW190 on 16/12/2020 - 14:40
        +2

        every job is different I guess.

        In most of the jobs I have had in the past, the contract usually specifies the office I will working in, sometimes with an additional clause "or as directed by employer" or something.

    • astarman on 17/12/2020 - 00:37

      OP valued his job security, set work times, no forced overtime and easy life.
      so no idea why hes also now wishing for a WFH part as well

  • pogichinoy on 16/12/2020 - 07:26
    +1

    NSW has lifted restrictions and has encouraged the return to the office whilst following covid measures.

    They are within their rights.

    • suntap on 16/12/2020 - 13:06
      +2

      Yes, people applied for their jobs knowing that they must "go to work" at the times they have been employed for. For some, WFH because of the virus has had many benefits for them. But I fail to see why you would think an employer has to change his workplace to suit your personal needs. The employer has every right for you to work to the conditions you accepted employment under. Whilst you may have many reasons to work at home, employers, the economy and society, all have many, many reasons for you to "go to work" at the place of your employment.

      • pogichinoy on 16/12/2020 - 15:19
        +2

        I dunno what you're smoking but I am in support for returning to the office because that is what the employer has stipulated as part of their job contract.

        • suntap on 18/12/2020 - 16:18

          sorry, reply wasn't meant for you.

      • field1985 on 16/12/2020 - 18:19
        +5

        What are these "many, many reasons for you to "go to work" at the place of your employment?".

        "I fail to see why you would think an employer has to change his workplace to suit your personal needs."
        - It's cheaper for businesses/employers (no office space to rent/power/cool/heat)
        - It's cheaper for employees (no commute/no buying lunch)
        - It's more productive because people aren't distracted by office gossip
        - It's more productive because the 2hrs+ people spent commuting can now be spent working
        - It's better for society (happier families more engaged in local communities)
        - It reduces traffic
        - It reduces sick leave (less transmission of cold/flu/covid)
        etc, etc, etc

        The benefits are endless. But I am yet to hear anyone point out a single valid drawback… please enlighten me?

        • pogichinoy on 17/12/2020 - 14:12
          +1
          • It's cheaper for businesses/employers (no office space to rent/power/cool/heat)
            —- Most businesses want a presence, also many businesses are tied up in a rental contract so may as well fill the office.
          • It's cheaper for employees (no commute/no buying lunch)
            —- Agree.
          • It's more productive because people aren't distracted by office gossip
            —- I find WFH less productive because I cannot easily get in touch with people in my team, or other teams to collaborate. Office gossip is a choice.
          • It's more productive because the 2hrs+ people spent commuting can now be spent working
            —- This is a tricky slope. Are you implying the commute time lost is time people can spend working? e.g. working 7hrs per day, 2 hrs commute, they are not expected to work 9hr days?
          • It's better for society (happier families more engaged in local communities)
            —- Yes and no. Not everyone enjoys working from home. Not everyone enjoys always being at home with their family.
          • It reduces traffic
            —- Agree.
          • It reduces sick leave (less transmission of cold/flu/covid)
            —- Agree.

          Some points I'll raise:
          —- There are more distractions at home than there are at the office.
          —- Higher chance of internet outages as home internet has a higher probability of faultering than office internet
          —- Prone to being lazy at home
          —- Less probability for ergonomic areas of work at home
          —- Not every employee is tech savvy to setup their home office
          —- IT Service Desk cannot easily reach home workers
          —- IT hardware and software updates can be a nightmare to manage for home workers
          —- Less team synergy for home workers due to less team building events

          • field1985 on 17/12/2020 - 20:25

            @pogichinoy: It's cheaper for businesses/employers (no office space to rent/power/cool/heat)
            —- Most businesses want a presence.
            They want one, but they don't need it and it's wasted money. Just hire a receptionist and some shared meeting rooms for those that need them.

            It's more productive because people aren't distracted by office gossip
            —- I find WFH less productive because I cannot easily get in touch with people in my team, or other teams to collaborate. Office gossip is a choice.
            This was a problem initially, as everyone grabbed different communications tools. But now everything has been standardised to one communications platform (across our organisation), all team members are automatically logged into when they turn their PC. This makes it infinitely easier, unless they are on leave, the whole team is always available, even when they are in video meetings (but just listening to someone drone on) they can instantly reply. It is exponentially faster then having to track people down by calling, emailing or travelling to their desk.

            Office gossip is not a choice. The only choice is whether you use headphones to block it out or listen. It's also not just gossip, but overhearing phone calls, conversations, etc. In a modern corporate office you sit within earshot of a dozen people, there is zero privacy.

            It's more productive because the 2hrs+ people spent commuting can now be spent working
            —- This is a tricky slope. Are you implying the commute time lost is time people can spend working? e.g. working 7hrs per day, 2 hrs commute, they are not expected to work 9hr days?
            Not so much time, but energy. The two hours of mental stress commuting can now be expended as increased productivity during normal work hours. They still only work 7hrs, but it is a more productive 7hrs because they are not tired from waking up early to commute.

            It's better for society (happier families more engaged in local communities)
            —- Yes and no.
            Not everyone enjoys working from home. Not everyone enjoys always being at home with their family.
            The vast majority of our staff does. Our organisation wide surveys showed 80%+ support for WFH continuing in some capacity. Why should a minority, who have always had their way until now, get preference? If you don't like being at home, hire a co-working desk in your local suburb and get your employer to fund it, or use a public library like one of our senior managers happily does (he has 6 kids).

            • pogichinoy on 18/12/2020 - 19:31

              @field1985: It's cheaper for businesses/employers (no office space to rent/power/cool/heat)
              —- Most businesses want a presence.
              They want one, but they don't need it and it's wasted money. Just hire a receptionist and some shared meeting rooms for those that need them.
              For many consultation firms, sales, marketing, and even IT, yes we do need office space. It is not practical to have them meet somewhere to conduct business/work.

              —

              It may be fine for small businesses/start ups, but not for companies 200+ in this line of work.

              It's more productive because people aren't distracted by office gossip
              —- I find WFH less productive because I cannot easily get in touch with people in my team, or other teams to collaborate. Office gossip is a choice.
              This was a problem initially, as everyone grabbed different communications tools. But now everything has been standardised to one communications platform (across our organisation), all team members are automatically logged into when they turn their PC. This makes it infinitely easier, unless they are on leave, the whole team is always available, even when they are in video meetings (but just listening to someone drone on) they can instantly reply. It is exponentially faster then having to track people down by calling, emailing or travelling to their desk.

              Office gossip is not a choice. The only choice is whether you use headphones to block it out or listen. It's also not just gossip, but overhearing phone calls, conversations, etc. In a modern corporate office you sit within earshot of a dozen people, there is zero privacy.

              —
              Sounds like your employer doesn't have a SOE and needed to rush during the pandemic to establish a standard. Thankfully most companies are not like this.

              No way, it is infinitely better being able to ask your colleague next to you or across the divider a question rather than pinging them on IM to ask.

              I consider this background noise. You don't have to participate in it. Just like how I can hear sounds when I walk on the street, but I choose to ignore them, except of course sirens/horns in case its an emergency. Do you find noise when you're walking on the street stressful and does it affect you mentally?

              It's more productive because the 2hrs+ people spent commuting can now be spent working
              —- This is a tricky slope. Are you implying the commute time lost is time people can spend working? e.g. working 7hrs per day, 2 hrs commute, they are not expected to work 9hr days?
              Not so much time, but energy. The two hours of mental stress commuting can now be expended as increased productivity during normal work hours. They still only work 7hrs, but it is a more productive 7hrs because they are not tired from waking up early to commute.

              —

              Commuting is mental stress? Surely you cannot be serious.

              It's better for society (happier families more engaged in local communities)
              —- Yes and no.
              Not everyone enjoys working from home. Not everyone enjoys always being at home with their family.
              The vast majority of our staff does. Our organisation wide surveys showed 80%+ support for WFH continuing in some capacity. Why should a minority, who have always had their way until now, get preference? If you don't like being at home, hire a co-working desk in your local suburb and get your employer to fund it, or use a public library like one of our senior managers happily does (he has 6 kids).

              —
              Has your organisation ran performance metrics on productivity between working at the office and WFH? These are the statistics you need to justify WFH. I suggest you use Enlighten and consultants to work with your organisation to develop a benchmark on productivity and statistics.

              I suspect a lot of people who WFH enjoy the convenience and it making them more lazy despite enjoying it.

              If the majority supported a 20% payrise, are you happy to grant that regardless if it is feasible? No of course not. You need stats to justify such a decision.
          • field1985 on 17/12/2020 - 20:45

            @pogichinoy: I'll address those points:

            —- There are more distractions at home than there are at the office.
            Really depends on the office and the home environment. With kids returning to school, distractions at home will become less of an issue.

            —- Higher chance of internet outages as home internet has a higher probability of faultering than office internet
            Not necessarily. I recall more network outages at the office (semi-regular), then I can internet outages since WFH stated (only 1 due to blackout).

            —- Prone to being lazy at home
            Speak for yourself. Entirely subjective and your responsibility to manage

            —- Less probability for ergonomic areas of work at home
            This can be overcome. Offices already hire ergonomic consultants for their OH&S. Simply send the consultant around to staffs home offices instead of their corporate office desks.

            —- Not every employee is tech savvy to setup their home office
            This can be overcome. Any IT department can setup a dongle and laptop with installed software, then get it delivered to you. If that's not enough (basic internet, MS Office/Teams, etc), you shouldn't be in that technical of a role.

            —- IT Service Desk cannot easily reach home workers
            I work on an IT Service Desk. It is much easier to contact people working at home, because they are always there on instant messaging. In the office, they can be away at meetings, lunch, coffee break, who knows..?

            —- IT hardware and software updates can be a nightmare to manage for home workers
            This can be an issue if they are using wireless internet with poor coverage, but can easily be overcome by commuting to the office, just once, to run the updates.

            —- Less team synergy for home workers due to less team building events
            You can still have team building events. We've had two team lunches in the last month and are actually closer/stronger then when we were in the office ("all been through this together").

            • Jugganautx on 17/12/2020 - 21:34
              -1

              @field1985: TLDR

              • field1985 on 18/12/2020 - 13:43

                @Jugganautx: If you don't want to read discussions, internet discussion boards probably aren't for you and your abysmal attention span.

            • pogichinoy on 18/12/2020 - 19:44

              @field1985: —- There are more distractions at home than there are at the office.
              Really depends on the office and the home environment. With kids returning to school, distractions at home will become less of an issue.

              -

              Kids add a different spanner to the works. Whilst my employer is flexible, a lot of the parents have kid related duties in the mornings and afternoons which add to the distraction, also there are deliveries, errands, etc which are less or not likely to happen when at the office.

              —- Higher chance of internet outages as home internet has a higher probability of faultering than office internet
              Not necessarily. I recall more network outages at the office (semi-regular), then I can internet outages since WFH stated (only 1 due to blackout).

              -
              Nice for you but NBN at a colleague's area is down often.

              Those two instances in your example are already more than what has happened in my office.

              —- Prone to being lazy at home
              Speak for yourself. Entirely subjective and your responsibility to manage

              -

              Let me rephrase. Easier opportunities to be more lazy at home since no one else is watching you.

              —- Less probability for ergonomic areas of work at home
              This can be overcome. Offices already hire ergonomic consultants for their OH&S. Simply send the consultant around to staffs home offices instead of their corporate office desks.

              -
              "Simply send them to staff home offices"

              Ahh if only it was that simple and cost effective.

              —- Not every employee is tech savvy to setup their home office
              This can be overcome. Any IT department can setup a dongle and laptop with installed software, then get it delivered to you. If that's not enough (basic internet, MS Office/Teams, etc), you shouldn't be in that technical of a role.

              -

              Again, additional effort, and cost involved. Where are these savings again for employees WFH?

              —- IT Service Desk cannot easily reach home workers
              I work on an IT Service Desk. It is much easier to contact people working at home, because they are always there on instant messaging. In the office, they can be away at meetings, lunch, coffee break, who knows..?

              -
              Subjective. At home, it sounds like they cannot be in meetings, away at lunch, on coffee breaks, etc
              My IT service desk colleagues dislike the WFH initiative because it was difficult for them to get hold of users.

              Whilst I too work in IT, but in the ERP space, it was not company policy to have my new laptop sent to my home. I needed to spend a day in the office to transfer my data across. Not a pain but it could all be alleviated if I was in the office more often.

              —- IT hardware and software updates can be a nightmare to manage for home workers
              This can be an issue if they are using wireless internet with poor coverage, but can easily be overcome by commuting to the office, just once, to run the updates.

              -

              Woohoo! Now if only they did that often as critical patches happen twice a month.

              —- Less team synergy for home workers due to less team building events
              You can still have team building events. We've had two team lunches in the last month and are actually closer/stronger then when we were in the office ("all been through this together").

              -

              Fair enough
  • Bristhrifty on 16/12/2020 - 07:28
    +7

    I work in gov. Most of us are back 2 or 3 days a week. There are a few that don't want to come back at all (100% work from home) and they're also the ones that do absolutely nothing.

    • xdigger on 16/12/2020 - 13:35
      +1

      Its a well known fact that there are many cushy government departments on taxpayers monies that doesn't do much at all. They should be put on a 3 days work week and employees can job share and WFH, including even some on disabilities if they are not that impaired.

  • dashy1 on 16/12/2020 - 07:30
    +2

    I have been stood down, but now back working 2 days a week, they have tried to tell us to come back to the office but I have had to tell them on only 2 days pay I cant afford to pay for childcare so WFH it is

  • Nebargains on 16/12/2020 - 07:44
    +4

    I think people look at this only from the view of the employee and mention things like saving on transport associated costs, time commuting, flexibility etc. None of these are a benefit to the employer.

    I'd be happy to go back to the office, frankly Zoom and Slack are simply not replacements for in person contact & collaboration, getting things done that involve working with another person has become so much harder. Also people mention being more productive, maybe that is true, but probably only for the already hard workers, back when you were in the office you would probably look around and see people slacking off, not working particularly hard but just doing enough… do you think those same people are suddenly more productive now that they are completely unsupervised?

    • jacross on 16/12/2020 - 08:24
      +13

      As a manager of people I can supervise them while WFH. Im aware of their outputs, which is what I care about.

      Also mental health and the intangibles do matter for productivity. I manage individuals to get the best out of those individuals. Some are quite hands off. Some need more social and other interaction. I try to give everyone what they need to produce. I yearn for real flexibility for all to the extent it can be deployed. That is a benefit to the employer.

      Another benefit to the employer is in commercial real estate requirements. Im genuinely intrigued to see how that will play out long term as there are multiple variables.

      Outside of Covid I wish for those who like teleworking to do so and those who like a traditional office setting to have that. I also think smart hubs will play a big role going forward. Until we're all replaced by AI that is.

      You sound like an 'office' type. I would support you but expect you to support teleworking types (and vice versa). I would also remind you you've had your way exclusively until 2020.

      Thus the application if leadership and management skills. Yes they are in short supply but that applies to the traditional office also.

    • field1985 on 16/12/2020 - 18:30
      -1

      "Zoom and Slack are simply not replacements for in person contact & collaboration" - You're right they're exponentially more efficient then meeting in person. Those who insist on meeting in person will go out of business and be let go soon enough. It's now been proven to be an expensive waste of time/space/money. Adapt or die.

      • MessyG on 16/12/2020 - 21:21
        +2

        I have to say I am much much more efficient in Zoom meetings now because I hate them so much I just want to get them done. In person meetings are a great place to catch up and have a chat with everyone and always ran for much longer!

        • capslock janitor on 17/12/2020 - 14:07
          -1

          The "required" 'socializing' in person aspect is good, we can't lose that!

          Hermits would crawl back into their shells :(

          • jacross on 17/12/2020 - 14:30

            @capslock janitor: I think you mean the introverts would get back to finishing their work so they can enjoy their lives and the socialising that is real to them instead of having to sit in a room so MissG can blather on inanely about whatever off topic nonsense captures her fancy.

  • QW3RTY on 16/12/2020 - 08:25
    +2

    60% WFO is a very reasonable request.

    Our company (Sydney, NSW) has required our 100% attendance from 1 June for all employees who aren't a risk category (or providing direct care for a risk category).

    If you have a legitimate reason for requiring more than 2 days worked from home, make an official request with HR and your direct manager.

    If it is denied, you need to ask yourself whether this is a true deal breaker. From the sounds of things it sounds like you have just become accustomed to the WFH benefits (which is reasonable), but not something worth leaving for a new job over. Just my two cents and ultimately your decision to make.

    • mini2 on 16/12/2020 - 11:18
      +1

      Or you could say it's WFW (Working From Work…)

  • jacross on 16/12/2020 - 08:34
    +2

    My agency is 'majority' in the traditional office, which in practice is being interpreted as 60% in office for full time people.

    As a teleworking 'flexibility' and innovation zealot (though not to the exclusion of those who like a traditional office space), i share your frustration with quotas, but on the other hand it is a big step in the right direction.

    I would say maintain the rage but also be mindful of what has been achieved.

    For those who simply can say 'dont like it leave', thus we see the stagnation if the large firm.

  • Mordaunt on 16/12/2020 - 08:55
    +16

    My boss said straight up that if you can do your job from home it can also be done cheaper from India.

    • RocketSwitch on 16/12/2020 - 09:02
      +5

      That boss needs to go. A mindset like that is pure poison. At least you know what a person is like and how much personal development they have left to go. I would leave if I had a boss like that.

      • Mordaunt on 16/12/2020 - 09:31
        +11

        Hey at least he's willing to say what senior management keeps silent about until outsourcing arrangements are already finalised.

        • capslock janitor on 17/12/2020 - 14:09
          +1

          then we can start boycotting those bizzes too, similar way some are boycotting CN products, same way people want to support local suppliers

          it could/should be shunned

    • Shazam1 on 16/12/2020 - 09:40

      How difficult it is for the Australian government to implement regulations that stop outsourcing?

      It can be regulated easily, to ensure Australian citizens are employed first.

      Your boss doesn't make much sense. Just making noise is no longer enough.

      • PaPaGeorGeo on 16/12/2020 - 16:26
        +1

        You dont want this if you want Australian businesses to be competive in the Global Marketplace, the business I work for would not be viable if the Development and Customer Service work all had to be done in Australia.

        Australian companies would not be competitive in the Global Environment. Its a similar argument to the Automation with Robots etc if you do dont do it, there will be other companies that do, that you wont be able to compete with on price.

      • astarman on 17/12/2020 - 00:42

        most aus gov do not outsource overseas, especially when it involes australian citizen data.

        there is a security vetting system for all federal jobs. the first criteria is youre an aus ciziten.

        im also pretty sure, APS hired so many staff during covid, compared to the private who layed them off, whilst running business BAU

    • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 17:32

      So get him to send you on holiday to India (once the restrictions lift).

    • MessyG on 16/12/2020 - 21:22
      +2

      How does that make any sense at all. Industry experience, relevant local qualifications…boss sounds like a control freak.

  • PAOK11 on 16/12/2020 - 09:03
    +1

    Training people from home is extremely difficult. I started a new job and it feels like your annoying with these little questions that would be okay in the office. That being said no-ome likes that new employee that asks before trying to figure things out themselves. I like to think that im not like that.

    For me personally, WFH is the absolute dream. At my old job I was driving close to 3 hours a day to travel 20km each way which is insane. I can nearly cover that distance faster on foot. I also hate peak hour trains which will be the reality for me when I have to go back to the office at my new gig

  • RocketSwitch on 16/12/2020 - 09:05
    +1

    Not much you could do OP! You may need HR to step in. If you're really unhappy, try looking for another job. Eventually, the world will see the light, maybe once these outdated thinkers die out. I also believe it's the government's responsibility to encourage a new way of working. Studies continue to prove the benefits of permanent flexibility, but humans being humans, are blind.

  • afah0447 on 16/12/2020 - 09:08
    -2

    This is why unions are formed and the LNP hates them…workers actually standing up for their rights and demanding being treated as more than just an input to profitability on a spreadsheet.

    • jv on 16/12/2020 - 10:44
      +6

      This is why unions are formed

      Unions are formed to line their own pockets…

      • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 17:36

        Whereas your employer just has a job for you out of the goodness of their heart and have your best interests at heart? Unions certainly can be corrupted but I suggest you learn some history and take a look at what conditions were like before the union movement and why they came into being.

        • jv on 16/12/2020 - 17:37
          -1

          Whereas your employer just has a job for you out of the goodness of their heart

          No, they usually start a business to make money… People rarely start a business for the purpose of giving people jobs…

          • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 17:39
            +1

            @jv: And the imbalance of power between employers who have their own interests and employees is why unions and collective bargaining came into being.

            • jv on 16/12/2020 - 17:40
              +1

              @syousef:

              And the imbalance of power between employers who have their own interests

              That might be because it is their business…

              • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 17:41

                @jv: You're making my point for me. Most if not all aren't going to have employees as their number one priority. And an employee on their own can be told to GTFO if they don't like it.

                • jv on 16/12/2020 - 17:42
                  +1

                  @syousef:

                  Most if not all aren't going to have employees as their number one priority.

                  That's entirely their decision.

                  They created the company and it belongs to them.

                  As long as they are doing things legally, they can do what they like.

                  • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 17:47
                    +1

                    @jv: This is what you had without unions.

                    https://museum.wales/articles/2011-04-11/Children-in-Mines/

                    Employers have a lot more clout in influencing the law if people do not organize into groups.

                    If you support that, I don't support your views or you. There is a difference between what is legal and what is moral. And unbridled and unregulated capitalism does not lead to anything moral.

                    • jv on 16/12/2020 - 17:49
                      +1

                      @syousef:

                      This is what you had without unions.

                      I don't have a business in the mines…

                      Unions have been doing some pretty disgusting things too if you want to cherry pick…

                      • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 17:53
                        +3

                        @jv:

                        I don't have a business in the mines…

                        Whether you have a business in the mines is completely irrelevant, but nice try deflecting. The point is that many employers will behave badly and put their interests above those of workers to the detriment of workers in a way that is morally unconscionable. if not regulated.

                        Unions have been doing some pretty disgusting things too if you want to cherry pick…

                        I don't want to cherry pick which is why I said "Unions certainly can be corrupted" in my very first response to you. That doesn't negate the need for employees to bargain collectively, or for capitalism to be regulated with workers in mind.

                        • jv on 16/12/2020 - 17:55
                          -2

                          @syousef:

                          Whether you have a business in the mines is completely irrelevant

                          Not when you cherry pick examples…

                          1 company vs Billions of companies around the world…

                          Unions certainly can be corrupted

                          Of which there are many examples in recent years… I read something in the news a couple of weeks back…

                          • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 18:02
                            +2

                            @jv:

                            Not when you cherry pick examples…

                            I'm not cherry picking examples of anything and I didn't say you had a business in the mines. I am well aware of your reputation for arguing jv, but I'm not going to let you get away with silly straw men. Try again.

                            1 company vs Billions of companies around the world…

                            There are many, MANY examples of companies that mistreat their employees around the world and the laxer the labour laws are the more rife it is. Would you want to work in a sweat shop? YOU are the one cherry picking examples by suggesting that ALL employers can be left to their own devices not to abuse their workers, not me.

                            Of which there are many examples in recent years… I read something in the news a couple of weeks back

                            Whereas there are no examples of workers suffering such terrible conditions that they're throwing themselves of buildings. Employers have a solution though - netting.

                            Unions should be regulated too, but you have not presented a single reason why employers can be trusted to provide decent working conditions without suitable regulation and collective bargaining.

                            • jv on 16/12/2020 - 18:11

                              @syousef:

                              There are many, MANY examples of companies that mistreat their employees around the world and the laxer the labour laws are the more rife it is

                              And for each one of those, there are probably thousands that don't.

                              • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 18:13
                                +1

                                @jv:

                                And for each one of those, there are probably thousands that don't.

                                Many that don't do not do so due to regulation and unions. In any case the ones that don't are not the problem. If you look at countries where unions are outlawed you see sweatshops and horrid working conditions.

                                Give it up mate.

                                • jv on 16/12/2020 - 18:13

                                  @syousef:

                                  Many that don't do not do so due to regulation and unions.

                                  or they just do the right thing and make sure they follow the laws…

                                  • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 18:15

                                    @jv:

                                    or they just do the right thing and make sure they follow the laws…

                                    Are you denying the correlation between countries with horrible labour conditions and those that outlaw unions? Want some data on that champ?

                                • jv on 16/12/2020 - 18:15

                                  @syousef:

                                  If you look at countries where unions are outlawed you see sweatshops and horrid working conditions.

                                  Oh, it has nothing to do with being third world countries then… Must be because they don't have unions… sure…

                                  • syousef on 16/12/2020 - 18:19
                                    +3

                                    @jv:

                                    Oh, it has nothing to do with being third world countries then… Must be because they don't have unions… sure…

                                    I see that you ARE denying the correlation. The richest countries are not the ones with the least violations of labour law.

                                    Btw who's cherry picking now mate?

                                    https://www.expat.com/en/expat-mag/2543-the-five-best-countr…

                                    https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-06-13/these-6-countries-are…

                                    "The inclusion of South Korea may come as a surprise to many, but one of the country's largest employers, Samsung, has been accused of using as many as 10,000 illegal workers. It also blocked the formation of labor unions for years. Up to 1,400 workers defied that policy and formed what is thought to be Samsung's first union last year, but have been pressured to dismantle it by executives ever since. In October 2013, Samsung service center worker Choi Jong-beom committed suicide over low wages and harsh working conditions at the company. He claimed he had been skipping meals to keep up with a work day that started at 7 a.m. and didn't end until 9 p.m. He had no days off."

                                    https://www.antitraffickingreview.org/index.php/atrjournal/a…

                                    https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---a…

                                    Seriously your idea that most employers will just behave themselves and NOT influence politicians to make labour laws more lax are not bourne out by the reality of what's going on. You can waste my time looking into this stuff but what you said does not hold water AT ALL.

  • dufflover on 16/12/2020 - 09:10

    all the while maintaining (if not improving) productivity

    That may be true for you but perhaps not for many other individuals - ones who are equally happy to play the card that makes sets the whole "minority/individual who ruins it for everyone else" situation. We had that years ago at our work when they tried introducing WFH. Incase you're wondering unfortunately we were part of a much larger parent company whose HR made it too hard to simply fire people who abused the system.

  • PopCounty on 16/12/2020 - 09:31
    +2

    These kinds of posts where OP becomes oblivious. Just don’t feel justified.
    Anyway, 60% is apt for wfh arrangements. If not, what if it was 80% or even 100% (wfo)?

    Ppl feel pain for whatever good may be. How about retail staffs where there is no choice? Or a tradie?

    Still think 60% is bad? Think again.

    • astarman on 17/12/2020 - 00:13

      if it was WFH 100%, then OP would need to go into a formal arrangement to discuss Working from office arrangements

  • scottb721 on 16/12/2020 - 09:39
    +3

    The people complaining about being stuck at home are now complaining about having to go back into the office :-D

    • capslock janitor on 17/12/2020 - 14:13

      yeah maybe haha some people like to whinge about anything

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 16/12/2020 - 09:48
    +4

    OP, do you like your workplace? do you like your colleagues? do you like your work? how long does it take to travel to/from work/home? do you have children?

    Because in my workplace, I would guess that those who love working from home often dislike their work, colleagues, travel more than 45mins each way, and often have young children - but will use the 'I am too worried of Covid' excuse to avoid going into the office.

    I disliked WFH because I like my work, my workplace and I interact well with my colleagues. It helps that I live close to the office and do not have any children. Plus getting into the office meant I could be spontaneous (coffees, lunch, after work drinks and dinners) and stimulate the economy - even though I'd rather jet off to another country the moment the international borders are open.

  • crashloaded on 16/12/2020 - 10:15
    +1

    How do you know productivity is improving if you're just an employee? Maybe it isn't and that's why they're making you go back to the office.

    • MrBear on 16/12/2020 - 10:27

      "just an employee" - who do you think measures productivity? Non-employees?

      • crashloaded on 16/12/2020 - 10:35
        +2

        Sorry I meant, if you're not in the role that measures productivity, bad wording on my part.

        • bobwokeup on 16/12/2020 - 10:52
          +2

          If you’re any good at your job you can see how your immediate team and the wider business is performing even without reports. We rolled out more agile initiatives during COVID and received great feedback from business users.

          • crashloaded on 16/12/2020 - 13:41
            +2

            @bobwokeup: Yes but it's pretty rare that any company will apply different rules to different departments, it's a HR nightmare.

            • MrBear on 17/12/2020 - 14:55

              @crashloaded: They absolutely measure different departments differently.

              Sales is measured on sales, development by the number of bugs created, executives by how much they don't spend, customer service by how many calls they take.

              • crashloaded on 17/12/2020 - 15:43

                @MrBear: Yes, measure productivity, but for example if they say ok execs can work from home but Devs have to come in to the office. I know if they did that at my job HR would be copping a flood of complaints.

  • Whensday on 16/12/2020 - 10:35
    +2

    We were all keen to start going back in to the office, but since social distancing is a thing in the office, it doesn't really work. A meeting room that used to accommodate 20 is now limited to just four. Online meetings don't have that limitation.
    We can't have more than two people in the lift at a time. For our large building, that would mean excessive wait times just to get everyone to the desired floor at peak times.Having people use the enclosed stairwell isn't an option either.
    Covid might now be low risk in Melbourne, but there are still some impracticalities surrounding a return to the office.

    • bobwokeup on 16/12/2020 - 10:53

      The same happened at our office but the funny thing was people still walked right behind everyone’s desks so there was NO social distancing going on anyway.

      • FW190 on 16/12/2020 - 20:05
        +1

        our office has been WFH for the last 8 or so months, with a skeleton rotating crew left onsite.

        yesterday the company organised X'mas buffet lunch at the office, a lot of people came back for it.

        And damn, people were crowding in the kitchen, standing shoulder to shoulder, elbowing each other to get food, I had one quick look and I turned around and walked away, I waited for the crowd to clear before going back for some food………….. hopefully we won't be in the news over the next couple of weeks as the "company name" cluster………

  • Gina Rinehart on 16/12/2020 - 10:37
    +5

    There are some serious productivity issues in the public service… some very lazy people ruin it for those who can work productively from home. Blame them.

    Also given most large departments have massive leases of office space, it is easier for them to justify the cost / etc. by requiring people to attend the office. It is short sighted, yes.

  • Ashbargin on 16/12/2020 - 10:39

    The problem if everyone one is to work from home 100% is how do you onboard new people into the business. Simply, have them spend time working from home without guidance or assistance?

    • bobwokeup on 16/12/2020 - 10:56
      +1

      We had new starters during the peak of COVID and yeah it took slightly longer to upskill them but the only big difference was it was harder to build a rapport. I prefer WFH but I do understand the need for a day in the office every now and then but you don’t need it to do your job, even if you’re new.

  • 343 on 16/12/2020 - 10:40
    +4

    I have been working from home since March2020 and planning to return to office in the new year (2 or 3 days a week).
    WFH definitley has its perks but what do you do when you want to do workshop and discuss ideas.
    We struggle when doing this remotely, not everyone in the team is great with Tech.
    Not to forget when you have people reporting to you and they have been misusing the WFH perks, productivity is on par only on certain days.
    Cannot have those pep talks anymore and cannot monitor their work remotely (get into trouble from HR).

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join