My employer is trying to enforce 60% return to office, insinuating that there will be repercussions for those who don't follow this mandate.
Are your employers also trying to enforce people returning to office? And what are your thoughts/observations from your fellow colleagues?
Edit: I personally don't mind going into the office, but interested to know how others are feeling. Added poll:
Some bosses think that we're having a "long weekend". Think it's more of a powerplay than anything else though.
some people do have long weekends. I have had staff who are virtually uncontactable when they WFH on a friday in particular.
@damascato: Well it's not tough luck for me. If they do it to many times, I revoke their WFH privileges. If they don't like it, go find another job. Pretty simple really.
Basically what @roundnumbersonly said
Our office is supposed to have a certain amount of people in each day just so it's not a ghost town.
The "TWaTs" hog the Mondays and Fridays meaning that other people may not be able to WFH Mon or Fri, which are often the most desired.
Additionally I would argue that Mondays and Fridays are probably the days where the least amount of work happens as people are winding up or winding down. This segues into @lunchbox99's point where some people are having long weekends. I know of someone in another org who will set his iPhone's screen to never lock, open Teams and just leave it charging somewhere he can hear it (if someone calls/messages) - keeping him "Green" all day.
That being said I'm sure these are fringe cases and that most people who do always WFH Mon and Fri are doing the right thing.
Our office is supposed to have a certain amount of people in each day just so it's not a ghost town.
Yeah, this is a pretty silly requirement.
I know of someone in another org who will set his iPhone's screen to never lock, open Teams and just leave it charging somewhere he can hear it (if someone calls/messages) - keeping him "Green" all day.
Policies like "we're worried about long weekends so no wfh adjacent to a weekend" will just mean the piss takers will take the piss during the week, and you penalise the people that do the right thing. Whether in the office or not, on a Friday I'm heading home early (today I was in the office, left at 2pm). Usually I'd finish at a similar time if wfh but without needing to commute to start enjoying my weekend. To be honest, if Mondays/Fridays are the days where the least amount of work is done anyway (and I'd argue Monday is not really the same as Friday, but I digress) then it seems like mandating office days there is just lazy leadership. If you can't extract utility from them in the office then I'm not sure what it has to do with your working environment.
Omg, your acronym for the T/W/T office workers had me in stitches :D
My office is flexible as well, its all your / my choice.
However I still like coming into the office a least 2 days a week.
Employers are allowed to dictate the working terms of their office, within the Pandemic I have also worked in an office that required full time attendance and WFH was by special request only (or when there is a lockdown).
If I don't like it I leave.
Exactly, if people don't agree with their work conditions go find a new job. It's really as simple as that. Unless it's flexibility protected under the Fair Work Act, but even then it's fairly easy to justify working onsite for business reasons.
Just a thought, maybe an unpopular one, but I thought employers enforcing going back to the office is good. Think about it, if your work can be done perfectly remotely, wouldn't it be a matter of time before your job is outsourced to some third world country? Personally, I feel some parts of my work is better done face to face, saves time and it is easier to convince someone face to face than over emails/slack. It is also far easier to ignore someone when working remotely. :P
Most roles don't work well being outsourced to foreign workers or cant be for legal reasons and the ones that do were already outsourced years ago.
no because 3rd world country work is of a sh*t standard. going into an office is a waste of time.
would you expect your lawyer, accountant etc to turn up to your house or work remotely. you wouldnt outsource that work
Yea, based on my own experience, work from an average outsourced worker is pretty bad. However, there are some good ones, you just need to pay more for them, unfortunately, managers treat people like numbers, why do they need to pay half an Australian wage when they only need to pay 1/3.
No, You wouldn't outsource lawyers or accountants because local knowledge is required, but paralegals and account support people can be outsourced and you wouldn't know.
i've seen outsourced IT work for over 20 years. you may pay 1/3 but you pay 5 times, getting shocking communication, workers who churn at the speed of light in these big TATA firms. Some workers are good but 90% garbage. Oh and the number of public holidays in India.. there is one every week
No different to a builder, you want something done right, pay good $$$ for a better one, not some hill billy gronk.
@Donaldhump: Agree. I think time has now proven that outsourcing to low cost providers ends up costing the business more, for most things - especially knowledge work
@Donaldhump: The thing with Aussie builders is, even when you pay extra $$$ you still end up with a hillbilly gronk with shoddy work quality. Plus they'll bury rubbish all over your property.
No different to a builder, you want something done right, pay good $$$ for a better one, not some hill billy gronk.
I hired an "Aussie" builder and he ran away with my money without doing any work.
I agree. The only exception to this would be Sydney and Melbourne apartment builders, I reckon the nearby Indonesian tradies do a far better job in building an apartment that wouldn't fall apart like Opal did!
We outsourced a project during the pre-pandemic days. The developer was charging only ¼ compared to a local developer, so we figured that any shortfall we could fill and save money at the same time. It was the worst decision we made.
The work was subpar, took a long time, and there was so much miscommunication. There were also lots of local nuance that was missed. The time difference also meant we lost about a day each way for feedback and changes. In the end the product was so suboptimal that we had to scrap the entire project, and start it from scratch. None of half-finished product was usable. We lost half of our initial budget and about 6 months, then had to pay double our initial budget to have a local contractor to do it properly.
I know this is just one anecdote, but sometimes you really do get what you pay for.
I agree that you get what you pay for. The company I work for have had some successes(and failures) outsourcing work overseas. One thing we have learnt is not to treat people like numbers because when you do that, it is very tempting to try paying the least for the same "amount of work". Imagine if you have found someone charging 1/2 the amount of a local developer instead, the outcome might have been quite different.
I think this applies to hiring tradies here as well. People cut corners when they get paid less.
Anyway, I am not pro outsourcing overseas. I just think people should be careful what they wish for.
You get what you pay for when outsourcing is a win when you don't get what you pay for hiring local.
The root of IT management problems, including the outsourcing trap, is thinking of software development as a simple task like bricklaying or lawnmowing.
More workers, more work done. Less skilled? They'll only be 10 or 50% less productive. It's obvious when they stuff up, and straightforward to fix it.
Nope, on the spectrum of simple work to complex work, software Dev is much closer to the creative end than the straightforward end. It's not quite as complex as inventing something like the iPhone, or writing a bestselling critically acclaimed novel, or painting art that influences the broader culture, but it's much much closer to those on the scale than it is to lawnmowing.
Once that's understood, it's much easier to see why adding double the workers at a quarter of the price, or hiring extra people because the project is behind schedule, don't work.
They’re going to sock it to you now. They don’t like anyone pointing out how their job could be at risk if they push for more WFH than the employer wants. It’s silly really because you’re just warning them what could happen, not mandating their work hours.
Think about it, if your work can be done perfectly remotely, wouldn't it be a matter of time before your job is outsourced to some third world country?
So what's the reason for jobs being outsourced pre-COVID?
If the only thing that makes you stand out as a worthwhile employee is your physical location, then sounds like you should be worried
Private sector have tried that, at best you have some type of hybrid model
Otherwise it has to be really simple clear work. Anything creative, or that deviates theres going to be an issue
Having twice as many employees in India doing IT work for you… doesn't turn out so well when their technical skill can't solve simple issues because they don't have context
Sounds crazy that your employer is wanting its employees to come to work right?!
Seems pretty standard to me. Employees can want some flexibility and inturn look for a new job if their employer doesn't provide it. Being able to work 40% from home is something I'm sure many employees would love to have the benefit of.
Unless you were specifically employed under a contract stipulating your position is only to WFH, I don't think you have a leg to stand one. To me, in the majority of circumstances it would be a lawful direction for your employer to require you to come into work X days a week. If you don't follow that lawful direction, best to start looking for a new job.
2 days in the office and 3 days WFH for me, even that is a struggle these days. I'm really hoping my employer won't make us come in more than that.
If you fear for your health, then do not go in.
You cannot buy another life.
You cannot buy another life.
Truth be told, you can buy Another Life on PC (Steam), iOS and Android.
Hope that helps.
employers want you to work from home when Covid was on, but now insist you go back is a bloody double standard. Im meant to go in 2 days a week but barely do as the commute is an hour and a half and I work late so if I go in and leave at 5pm I will not turn laptop on. if they want to make a scene about it, I'll go elsewhere. I do more at home, and feel less tired commuting to the same stupid location 99% of us all go to battling roads that can handle a population of 25 years ago. If i go to work i have coffee and lunch breaks, I barely do at home
my simple rule is if i go in i never turn my laptop on or answer emails once i leave so what would you prefer.
employersgovernment want you to work from home when Covid was on
I am the opposite, I have a fully remote role and dream of being able to go into an office, make friends, chat to people, go for walks together to get coffee or have lunch together. Talking over Teams is not the same and my motivation to do work is really low being at home all day every day. I probably wouldn't want to be in the office 5 days a week but 3 would be perfect. 2 days is enough to get those random chores done during the day like laundry so they don't encroach on the weekend, and extra time to get a walk in in the morning as there's no commute time to worry about, but that would be plenty enough for me.
I voluntarily attend the office a couple of times a week for this reason. Usually have a relatively low output on those days because I focus on relationship building. I think it’s worth it. 3 days at home to pump out work. A couple of days in the office to talk to people and eat lunch together and go out for coffees. But idk, if I was forced to go in 2 days a week I’d probably quit. A culture that can’t work with full time wfh is suboptimal.
This. My team is encouraged to come in to the office on Wednesdays if they want to come in. Not compulsory and when people do come in, work output goes way down because those in the office are mostly socialising. That's fine. Some people really need that and most can enjoy it when it's their choice. We've become pretty good at working together since lockdown started and honestly, those who were less productive working from home slowly chose other jobs and those who stayed now get to choose their own balance.
I am on the same boat! Work for a US firm as a remote employee here. I requested them to give me access to WeWork so I can go work out of there 2-3 days a week atleast for 4-5 hours.
It is great to get out of the house, work around people and feel a little bit connected.
If you don’t like it find a new job. There are a few tech companies that are fully remote now, and it works really well. Others are not (apple/Google). Go where suits you. Wfh is extremely effective with the right culture, and ineffective with the wrong culture. Some companies just are unable or unwilling to cultivate such a culture. Vote with your feet. Companies that can effectively pull off full time wfh availability are better even if you like to come into the the office. Usually they have less micromanagement, more trust, and are generally a nicer place to work. From experience.
Previous employer was mandating something similar for us (3.5 days in the office) else we'd face repercussions (toxic management). So, earlier this year, I dusted off the resume and took the remainder of my leave. I landed a new role, fairly quickly, at a 7% pay increase and is entirely WFH. There are opportunities out there that offer WFH – you just have to find them and apply.
What a world we live in where people can threaten their employer on how or where they want to work.
It's a temporary feeling of empowerment brought on by a low jobless rate due to low migration and low foreign worker numbers. I think hybrid work is here to stay in many workplaces, but I think full time remote work will be less common once things return to normal. There will still be some fully offsite jobs, just like before covid, but less than now.
What a world we live in where people can threaten their employees on how or where they want to work.
Power to the people! Commuting is a stupid waste of time that eats away at your life. I used to commute to the office 1.5 hrs each way. That's 15 hours a week, 60 hours per month. 60-80% wfh is a requirement for me if you want me to contribute my best work to your business. Alternatively just have a bunch of sad drones walking around making small talk when they stumble on each other with their coffee doing sub par work. But hey atleast they're back in.
Comments from IT Industry here: our work is strongly encouraging a flexible approach of 2/3 days in the office. People were initially hesitant, but actually, for the most part, they are enjoying the F2F aspect now & the collaboration. How do we know this? we are asking for open feedback monthly.
i work in IT, been fully remote since covid, work has never tried to force anyone to come in they have left it up to each individual. some go in, some never do (like me)
Given the nature of my work, I could get by with 1-2 days a month in the office. My employer has mandated 2 days a week under hybrid working arrangements.
It's not great for me given I live 2.5hrs away from the office by train (on a good tip). 2hrs (and $60 in parking, fuels and tolls) by car. Those Sydney days start at 4.15am and I'm generally a zombie by 9pm when I get back home.
That said:
I'll suck it up.
That's a great attitude!
this is the best way to look at it.
most of us had jobs before covid and worked in the office every day. if you get a better work life balance now because of opportunities now then great, but don't think like your entitled to work from home just because you can.
We have a mandatory 3 days in office. In my team, most colleagues comply. Attendance is being monitored/reported.
For people are not complying… I'm not aware of what repercussions (if any) tbh. I would guess their direct manager tries to encourage them, but could not force them and there are unique circumstances eg caring for children/household or feeling unwell.
For me personally, while full WFH is preferred, I dont mind some days in office.
huh? while the manager cant force them, you can be terminated if you cannot fufill the responsibilities of your job, and one of them might be working from the location that your employer asks you to work from.
i dont get the caring for children/household, that should be done outside work time, by taking the appropriate leave. why should an employer have to have less productivity because you need to vacuum the house.
I enjoy the flexibility between being in the office and working at home myself but it's undeniable that it's more productive for to be in the office some days (on the same days together). Most of my team know that so when thing's need to be done, we all get ourselves into the office without needing to be asked.
My wife was working at a job that required three days in the office, so she went job hunting and got a job that only required one day in the office.
Got a decent pay increase too. Works in Finance.
I dont WFH, but personally, I feel there should be a balance/ compromise. If the employer ask you to come into office 2-3 times a week, I think thats a reasonable request as meetings online or collaboration can be difficult and much easier in person. At the end of the day, if you dont like your conditions, you can always move in this hot market.
"collaboration" is a funny word. I don't see attending time wasting meetings for the sake of attending time wasting meetings as a "collaboration". There is literally nothing I can think of in my role, or traditional office roles at this point, that can't be done through either a quick teams meeting or a message. It's all just a big waste of valuable time that I would rather spend doing anything else.
Wfh needs to end so many of these call centres / big businesses have been a pain to deal with.. Reach someone working from home their reply I'll have to contact the next person please wait 2/3 business days for a call or it's in the to hard basket they hang up ring again go around in circles
And this is exactly why I state in interviews I want to work in the office and office location is key for me. I want to support the businesses near my office in the city since they missed out on the economic attention during lockdown
totally, i'm not sure why you are getting neg'ed.
imaging being a cafe owner in a city that relies on the office workforce, or a business that provides goods or services to those cafes.
Going to work in the CBD purely to support the local businesses is not really fair on the out of town workers. Imagine spending two hours commute everyday (plus costs, time away from family, not being able to multitask etc etc), purely to prop up a business instead of your local one.
What about supporting the cafe owners in your local neighborhood?
My employer doesn’t even have office space anymore, and we’re spread out across the world, so going into an office would mean seeing 2-3 people who I wouldn’t really be working with.
Yes, sometimes it’d be nice to hang out with people at a place but if you work on building relationships with your WFH teams you can get that water cooler chat time.
I get contacted all the time by recruiters, and when I turn them down I make sure to tell them it’s because of their WFH policies.
My parent company is trying to get people back in the office 5 days a week (there was a gentle but clear email sent out).
The company I work for merged with the parent a year ago. We were allocated about 1/3 of a floor. There's no way they will get my whole company back in FT as there's not enough desks. Most teams (or part thereof) are coming in once a week presently.
Starting next year, my tea will be on every Wednesday. Our new manager tried to get us to come in twice a week. He was ok with one day when a more senior member of the team said it's too much for him and others who have kids/live far away. I probably have the shortest return commute (2.5 - 3 hours) and I was dreading it as I get migraines in the office.
I was working for a large public sector organisation until recently. They begrudgingly adopted WFH for back office staff during the 2 COVID outbreaks but only at the last minute and barely compliant, if at all, and only because they were forced to. They recently rescinded all WFH, no matter what the reason was, no excuses, no correspondence will be entered into.
So I resigned. It just proved to me that some old school morons don't trust their staff no matter how hard we work. And now I'm working somewhere that doesn't care how often I come in. I only wanted 2 days a week at home anyway.
And they wonder why staff retention was a problem…
Sorry for your loss……
I was disappointed that there was no option other than to leave, but I’m glad I work in a field where there’s a shortage of decent people. Oh well, it’s my previous employer's loss now! They have lost about 25% of their decent staff due to this poor decision, but that's old school management ego for you!
My position proven increase in productivity as well as decreased fuel costs to employer by starting from home location but we are all starting from the office now.
Quietly told by supervisor its because many others took advantage of the situation and ended up being less productive.
Obviously some employees need constant supervision.
Exactly; so instead of people blaming their employer, maybe they should look at the people they work with (and at themselves)
Obviously some employees need constant supervision.
And that is justification to make life difficult for employees that are actually productive? Performance can easily be measured. People can be supervised remotely. Coming into an office doesn't necessarily guarantee that someone will be productive. Get your remote culture setup right and low performers will stick out like a sore thumb. We actually terminated a few go at my current workplace and conversely promoted high performers.
The only time when this is an issue is when management are too lazy to actually do any work around said measuring and would rather hover over employee desks pretending to be 'productive' themselves, or too cheap to hire someone experienced in this area to build proper remote culture and workflows.
Have you met people before. Can you imagine the uproar it would cause if some people were allowed to WFH and others weren't. I mean look at this topic alone; imagine if the OP got told he had to go into the office, but Joe Blow in the cubicle next to him was allowed to WFH
@Danstar: I'm suggesting getting rid of people who are unable to work remotely or putting systems in place to measure their performance as they work remote. This has been proven and done in existing workplaces that made record profits as people worked remote for 2 years. Forcing people to come into the office when there are many other workplaces offering full remote as the standard right now would cause uproar regardless. I'd rather hold on to individuals doing the right thing than someone who needs constant in-person monitoring like a 12yo. There is no guarantee that these 12yos wont leave for one of these other remote jobs either after being forced to come into work.
Same reason we have speed limits and laws mate. Because of the drop kicks, not because of the productive decent people. We have to manage the lowest common denominator, and that low is pretty bloody low.
Obviously some employees need constant supervision.
Less productive doesn't necessarily mean slacking off though, could just be inexperienced.
For example my company is like 90% hot desking which I enjoy as it means I meet a lot of new people regularly. The other day someone from another team was sitting near me and was having an issue with something that was completely outside the scope of my role. I simply asked what he was working on, we talked through it and I provided a few solutions which saved him a bunch of time.
What if he was working at home? I would say through inexperience he would have spent a lot of time working on this issue. Turns out collaboration is much easier in person.
Not sure why this is a thing in industries where people have actually been able to wfh until now. I'd personally comply for now but look for other jobs at the same time. The only way these dinosaurs will learn is when people start walking away from them.
Only narrow-minded people think WFH people are slackers.
Most people complaining about wfh are usually CEOs, managers and politicians… all of whom are definitely not known to be 'slackers'… (/s)
No no. Politicians want to work for 4 days, same amount of hours per day as 5 day work week with the same amount of pay….
Still dreaming of the 50s ey.
I prefer working from home. I am able to manage my time according to what needs doing. Rising costs (especially fuel) means I am able to save or treat me and my family more.
My work has seen the benefits and increased productivity of people working from home and have not made a huge deal of bringing people back in.
If they change their stance, I'd speak with my manager, and if an agreement cannot be made, then there are plenty of other places offering WFH setups. Not a huge loss for me personally.
my workplace currently has a partial return-to-office policy, usually as long as long as someone from any given team are in the office during business hours, they don't care too much, and as far as I can tell, it is not strictly enforced either, fingers crossed.
personally, I find 100% WFH or WFO to be depressing, a balance of the two would be ideal (but obviously everyone's circumstance and preference are different), presently I go into the office 2 to 3 days a week, if anything, just to get out of the house.
My workplace also 100% allows me to do what I want, so leave those pricks!
We are required to come into the office 3 days per week. Personally, I dont mind as it makes me really appreciate the home days but also breaks up the week by getting out of the house. Sure, I'd prefer 2 days in the office but honestly its not a terrible compromise. If it was a full 5days per week in the office then I'd be looking for another job.
I feel like people don't realise how much benefit is gained to employees by removing long/stressful commutes, removing expensive/stressful childcare logistics, even simply being able to get kids to bed at a more reasonable time.
In my life, my work has improved so much since those (previously daily immensely stressful) overheads have been minimised in my life. A lot of comments on here suggest it's clearly superior for employees to be in the office. Sure for certain things, yes. But as a daily/weekly norm - not necessarily at all
I just need a well made food from my own kitchen, lie down in my own bed/sofa when I'm on a break and use my own toilet with bidet. I hate the judgement I get when I have to access the toilet more than usual because my gut is upset sometimes. I really don't want to deal with that shit as an adult anymore.
My place of work is fully WFH now. Well, pretty close. We hot desk in at the office so there isn't actually permanent spaces for people. We only really need to be in the office 2 days every 3 months for agile planning. I am used to WFH since I've been doing it for two years, could not imagine 2 or 3 days in the office! This thread does, however, make me think that I should prfioritize a few more days here and there in at the office though.
Not started yet. But if they enforce 5-days, I will surely go to office (no other option) but will be strictly 8:30 to 5. Not even an extra minute like I do now when WFH. And anything that I have to do will be an OT charged work.
As it should be. Any OT should be billed.
Depends on the industry, I am in architecture my office return to work right after the lockdown was over. Some colleagues continued to work from home 2 days a week. but I find they are losing out some opportunities. The seniors always to prefer to ask the staff in office to do urgent tasks because it's so much easier to discuss right in front the screen and draw on paper. I do find it takes more time to explain things with screenshots via Teams.
Quit a job this year due to the employer requiring people to get in the office but when you come in, meetings are still happening on teams. Nah, won't spend 3-hours a day on commute for that.
2 days a week with my employer, but my team has arranged with HR to only have to go in once a fortnight.
Different strokes for different folks. Personally I think having 1 or 2 days a week working from home would be good.
Feelings? They don't give a shit about your feelings. I've no issue with people who WFH or prefer the office or a combination but let's not kid ourselves. We are paid slaves. Very few of us can dictate where our how we work. Either comply or find another job.
Slowly over the past few years, almost all Australian companies are turning into generic workaholic American companies who dont give a stuff about all the lovey dovey 'employee wellbeing', 'workplace culture' etc that used to be so big
I’ve been into the office maybe 4 times in the past 18 months.
I have colleagues who I speak with at least weekly and then there are the colleagues whose work doesn’t overlap and we just happen to work for the same company.
It’s this 2nd group I don’t need in my life - we aren’t friends and don’t work on the same things. A pleasant ‘hi’ is fine but I really don’t want to know your life story. I don’t care what holidays you have planned and I don’t want to know about your family.
WFH is more productive. Commuting is wasted time. I can’t see myself ever going back to a 5-day office environment. It seems almost moronic to get dressed up to sit in a car, to sit in an office surrounded by people I don’t really want to spend my time with. If I was forced to go back into the office, I’d probably look for a new job.
I guess it’s inevitable with the plunge in productivity from wfh. Some estimates put it around 70%, which seems in the ball park from my experience. While the cat’s away, the mice will play
Where are these estimates from?
Actually curious. Because I have experienced the exact opposite. Granted, not every workplace or line of work will experience the same outcomes.
Interesting read.
At least their definition of performance is not purely "time spent at desk".
However, their appendix shows their data is collected from the following industries: Health care, Higher education, Transport, Financial services, Telecommunication. All of which, I would assume, would make sense to be more productive in the office. Industries such as Tech, in my opinion, would have an entirely different result.
@Mr Random: Fair enough, but bear in mind that Tech is not a separate industry, lol. It’s integrated into every field of endeavour. Look at Twitter — $400 employee lunches, bleeding cash, bloated with ineffective wfh employees…
@tharlow: Sorry by tech I mean a company whose sole purpose is to create software.
Point taken though. Twitter with its high employee count is bound to have a decent percentage of employees taking advantage. They seem to be in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons these days.
I've worked in smaller Australian based companies which strive when wfh. They should do a study on the size of a company and its efficiency :)
(I'd wager smaller companies have closer teams which encourages good work ethics?)
Kind of an odd set of requirements, why?