WFH - a new model

[Condi]

Johnnytheboy said:

Quite a lot of places usually make WFH a lot more complicated normally (home insurance, a 'dedicated work station' which they have to come out and inspect, etc. ), but all that went out of the window due to Covid.... temporarily.

Quite a few FMs I've spoken to have suggested they have started to experience gentle pressure from H&S bods to start following 'the rules' re: WFH.

I wonder if the ability to WFH will start quietly start being taken away by a few more H&S-obsessed employers?

The employees will push back that WFH is currently safer than travelling to the office on public transport and mixing with other people.

That'll blow the H+S department's mind.

[CrutyRammers]

paddy1970 said:

Deep Thought said:

Its all very easy said but its not just a matter of having someone working from home somewhere in SA. Its a big commitment for a company to build a presence out there - office, support staff - and big enough to make it viable to do so. Also, if you want the offshore operation to work to UK processes and standards then you've to put a significant amount of UK people there for a significantly long time to try to instill those processes.

Then as i've said, theres cultural differences, difference in work ethic / approach, articulation and management of issues and problems, separate teams.

My wifes company have several offices out there and they havent really been a success. They've pushed various work out there call centre agent work, BPO work, support functions for their own company (HR, finance, etc) and it certainly hasnt been a breeze. A lot of the work ends up coming back to the UK or worse still, they've on occasions lost the contract and the client has pulled the business that they've put out there.

It can work, but its definitely not easy, and there are downsides for near shoring and off shoring. The headline savings can look tempting but theres much more to consider.

You totally miss the point. You do not need an office anymore. The WFH model is working with British staff. Why would not use SA staff? The model has moved on. This is individual shoring anywhere in the world.

It sounds like going back 20 years when everyone (in IT, at any rate) rushed to offshore...then found it often produced piss-poor results.
I predict that you're right, and companies will jump on this. Then in a decade or so's time, someone will come up with a great new model, where everyone works in the same place, to realise improvements from social interaction and shared culture, and why didn't we think of this before?

[Deep Thought]

Johnnytheboy said:

Quite a lot of places usually make WFH a lot more complicated normally (home insurance, a 'dedicated work station' which they have to come out and inspect, etc. ), but all that went out of the window due to Covid.... temporarily.

Quite a few FMs I've spoken to have suggested they have started to experience gentle pressure from H&S bods to start following 'the rules' re: WFH.

I wonder if the ability to WFH will start quietly start being taken away by a few more H&S-obsessed employers?

My wifes company temporarily suspended "the rules" around WFH but are now starting to enforce them. What that means is that people who havent got a dedicated and private space (at least a desk in a room / bedroom rather than working off a laptop on your knee in a shared space) are being asked / told to go back to office based work.

There may also be some pressure by managers / clients to ensure staff are in the office as they are then viewed as "easier to manage".

[Taita]

Johnnytheboy said:

Quite a lot of places usually make WFH a lot more complicated normally (home insurance, a 'dedicated work station' which they have to come out and inspect, etc. ), but all that went out of the window due to Covid.... temporarily.

Quite a few FMs I've spoken to have suggested they have started to experience gentle pressure from H&S bods to start following 'the rules' re: WFH.

I wonder if the ability to WFH will start quietly start being taken away by a few more H&S-obsessed employers?

Is the H&S inspecting your home office actually a thing or just a bit of creeping excellence / over-zealous H&S dweebs?

Never heard of it in my industry.

[Chamon_Lee]

Kermit power said:

paddy1970 said:

Deep Thought said:

Its all very easy said but its not just a matter of having someone working from home somewhere in SA. Its a big commitment for a company to build a presence out there - office, support staff - and big enough to make it viable to do so. Also, if you want the offshore operation to work to UK processes and standards then you've to put a significant amount of UK people there for a significantly long time to try to instill those processes.

Then as i've said, theres cultural differences, difference in work ethic / approach, articulation and management of issues and problems, separate teams.

My wifes company have several offices out there and they havent really been a success. They've pushed various work out there call centre agent work, BPO work, support functions for their own company (HR, finance, etc) and it certainly hasnt been a breeze. A lot of the work ends up coming back to the UK or worse still, they've on occasions lost the contract and the client has pulled the business that they've put out there.

It can work, but its definitely not easy, and there are downsides for near shoring and off shoring. The headline savings can look tempting but theres much more to consider.

You totally miss the point. You do not need an office anymore. The WFH model is working with British staff. Why would not use SA staff? The model has moved on. This is individual shoring anywhere in the world.

I think you're the one missing the point.

Yes, you can employ people without bringing them into an office and save money, but you can do that in the UK to a large extent.

Once you start working with employees in different countries, you end up with a whole host of different issues...

1. Even if you only employ people in one other country, you've just doubled the number of legal and taxation systems you need to be able to work with.

2. It's much harder to manage people remotely.

3. It's much harder to build relationships remotely, whether that be with customers or with colleagues.

4. Why do you suppose people like BT went to all the effort of moving their call centres to India, only to move them back again a couple of years later?

You can get all the cost benefits of not having a physical office in the UK whilst employing people in the UK. The returns thereafter aren't as clear cut.

I understand everything you are saying but I strong disagree with your last statment of regarding the returns being less clear cut. I would say you could easily save a further 60% minimum outsourcing to a different country.

Your BT example is just one, there are many others who have made it a success, execution is key.

In saying all that I can't say the WFH model is ideal - The culture of working in an office will be mixed, as with anything in life there needs to be a balance.

[tonyvid]

Taita said:

Is the H&S inspecting your home office actually a thing or just a bit of creeping excellence / over-zealous H&S dweebs?

Never heard of it in my industry.

They did me a few years ago but that was because I switched my contract to a being (technically) a full time homeworker - so I had an inspection for H&S, display user stuff, chair but mostly around security which included secure storage, being overseen, locks and alarms etc as my work needs to be managed carefully at times. Works easily if you live on your own but rapidly gets complicated with others in the house. And then suddenly 3000 staff find themselves at home full time and all that goes out the window apart from some reminder emails about securing your screen and putting your lappie away at night!

[Kermit power]

Chamon_Lee said:

Kermit power said:

paddy1970 said:

Deep Thought said:

Its all very easy said but its not just a matter of having someone working from home somewhere in SA. Its a big commitment for a company to build a presence out there - office, support staff - and big enough to make it viable to do so. Also, if you want the offshore operation to work to UK processes and standards then you've to put a significant amount of UK people there for a significantly long time to try to instill those processes.

Then as i've said, theres cultural differences, difference in work ethic / approach, articulation and management of issues and problems, separate teams.

My wifes company have several offices out there and they havent really been a success. They've pushed various work out there call centre agent work, BPO work, support functions for their own company (HR, finance, etc) and it certainly hasnt been a breeze. A lot of the work ends up coming back to the UK or worse still, they've on occasions lost the contract and the client has pulled the business that they've put out there.

It can work, but its definitely not easy, and there are downsides for near shoring and off shoring. The headline savings can look tempting but theres much more to consider.

You totally miss the point. You do not need an office anymore. The WFH model is working with British staff. Why would not use SA staff? The model has moved on. This is individual shoring anywhere in the world.

I think you're the one missing the point.

Yes, you can employ people without bringing them into an office and save money, but you can do that in the UK to a large extent.

Once you start working with employees in different countries, you end up with a whole host of different issues...

1. Even if you only employ people in one other country, you've just doubled the number of legal and taxation systems you need to be able to work with.

2. It's much harder to manage people remotely.

3. It's much harder to build relationships remotely, whether that be with customers or with colleagues.

4. Why do you suppose people like BT went to all the effort of moving their call centres to India, only to move them back again a couple of years later?

You can get all the cost benefits of not having a physical office in the UK whilst employing people in the UK. The returns thereafter aren't as clear cut.

I understand everything you are saying but I strong disagree with your last statment of regarding the returns being less clear cut. I would say you could easily save a further 60% minimum outsourcing to a different country.

Your BT example is just one, there are many others who have made it a success, execution is key.

In saying all that I can't say the WFH model is ideal - The culture of working in an office will be mixed, as with anything in life there needs to be a balance.

Remember though that BT and others haven't tried outsourcing to overseas WFH people. They've generally done it to office facilities overseas, so they can control the employees better, but even so it frequently fails and results in bringing stuff back here.

Previous comparisons have been cost of office-based people here vs office-based people there.

I think the current comparison is home-based people here vs office-based people there, where you're saving on the physical location costs here.

Comparing WFH here to WFH there is likely to be an utter nightmare! Can you imagine the PR disaster if it turns out your call centre staff are based in shanty town shacks with no running water, for example?

[Johnnytheboy]

Deep Thought said:

Johnnytheboy said:

Quite a lot of places usually make WFH a lot more complicated normally (home insurance, a 'dedicated work station' which they have to come out and inspect, etc. ), but all that went out of the window due to Covid.... temporarily.

Quite a few FMs I've spoken to have suggested they have started to experience gentle pressure from H&S bods to start following 'the rules' re: WFH.

I wonder if the ability to WFH will start quietly start being taken away by a few more H&S-obsessed employers?

My wifes company temporarily suspended "the rules" around WFH but are now starting to enforce them. What that means is that people who havent got a dedicated and private space (at least a desk in a room / bedroom rather than working off a laptop on your knee in a shared space) are being asked / told to go back to office based work.

There may also be some pressure by managers / clients to ensure staff are in the office as they are then viewed as "easier to manage".

The other thing is the whole "ha ha my cat has jumped on the laptop" thing while a customer-facing worker is on a video call may be tolerated during a global pandemic, less so when we return to normality.

[Deep Thought]

Kermit power said:

Remember though that BT and others haven't tried outsourcing to overseas WFH people. They've generally done it to office facilities overseas, so they can control the employees better, but even so it frequently fails and results in bringing stuff back here.

Previous comparisons have been cost of office-based people here vs office-based people there.

I think the current comparison is home-based people here vs office-based people there, where you're saving on the physical location costs here.

Comparing WFH here to WFH there is likely to be an utter nightmare! Can you imagine the PR disaster if it turns out your call centre staff are based in shanty town shacks with no running water, for example?

Indeed.

[Countdown]

Johnnytheboy said:

Quite a lot of places usually make WFH a lot more complicated normally (home insurance, a 'dedicated work station' which they have to come out and inspect, etc. ), but all that went out of the window due to Covid.... temporarily.

Quite a few FMs I've spoken to have suggested they have started to experience gentle pressure from H&S bods to start following 'the rules' re: WFH.

I wonder if the ability to WFH will start quietly start being taken away by a few more H&S-obsessed employers?

In terms of H&S we asked all employees to do an online H&S/Workstation assessment. Anybody that failed had new kit provided.

Generally there shouldn't be anything intrinsically unsafe about your home and if there is, it's not likely to be caused by your work (unless you're a welder or something).

In terms of Insurance I went through this with our brokers and they asked what risks we wanted to insure against. As long as people had done the risk assessments there wasnt anything that the Employer could be held liable for.

[mfmman]

I agree with quite a few of the last few posts, WFH is all the rage now but I'm not so sure its going to be prevalent as people are now thinking.

Background noise on calls, tolerable now but not ideal especially on big 'Teams' calls, I know people should go on mute, but then they forget to come back off and butt back in after a minute or so to make a point that everyone has moved on from.

Homeworking, proper workstations aren't possible in lots of places. I'm sat at a kitchen table, so not ideal. Wife and older son are furloughed and don't do jobs that could be done from home anyway but if they did.......younger son not at school but he is the only one with a suitable desk. How will households with Mum, Dad and two kids at home get on in a bog standard 3 bed semi?

I was in The City a couple of weeks ago, pubs still closed then so people were buying beer/wine from Sainsburys and sitting in the parks/green spaces have post work drinks. I would think those people are less than keen on a permanent WFH.

Talking to a customer last week, they have a department that undertakes customer management on long duration calls (think like how you would have a few 20/30 minute calls with L&C mortgages as a comparison, although it isn't them) Just the whole process of remote access to various systems makes them less productive so long term they would need 20% more staff (or strengthened systems not just home broadband I guess)

I must confess a vested interest as I do technical facilities management things in large corporate offices but I don't think the change will be as permanent as people are thinking. I have been able to work from home for 15 years plus but other than the odd day have never really taken to it.

[anxious_ant]

I think WFH would fizzle out in few months. Possibly gone by December.
Whilst it may work for minority, the majority requires the workforce at work, not in their homes. It’s just the way things work in the UK.

I still go into work some days and gotta say, I will definitely miss the lack of traffic, even going into Central London is relatively stress free currently.

[JQ]

CrutyRammers said:

Then in a decade or so's time, someone will come up with a great new model, where everyone works in the same place, to realise improvements from social interaction and shared culture, and why didn't we think of this before?

I think quite a few workers may be in for a shock when they find out Management already know this.

[Deep Thought]

Countdown said:

In terms of H&S we asked all employees to do an online H&S/Workstation assessment. Anybody that failed had new kit provided.

Generally there shouldn't be anything intrinsically unsafe about your home and if there is, it's not likely to be caused by your work (unless you're a welder or something).

In terms of Insurance I went through this with our brokers and they asked what risks we wanted to insure against. As long as people had done the risk assessments there wasnt anything that the Employer could be held liable for.

A lot of the issues relating to home working that my wifes company has faced were things like people using laptops on their knee all day, or people not having a private room / space to work from, thus maybe working in a communal area.

The company i'm with never asked or queried it. Most people i see on calls have settled / gravitated to some sort of desk area at very least though

[Deep Thought]

anxious_ant said:

I think WFH would fizzle out in few months. Possibly gone by December.
Whilst it may work for minority, the majority requires the workforce at work, not in their homes. It’s just the way things work in the UK.

I still go into work some days and gotta say, I will definitely miss the lack of traffic, even going into Central London is relatively stress free currently.

Define "requires" though? If people have been able to do their jobs whilst WFH from say March this year to maybe the end of the year, i'm struggling to think how companies would make "requires" work?

Granted, if its proven that a particular type of work is only 80% effective at home or the employee doesnt like it, then yes, but otherwise "requires" could just be down to old fashioned views and prejudices seeping through again.

[Deep Thought]

One of the things i've noticed happening more and more is that previously meetings were scheduled 09:00 to 17:00 whereas now its becoming more normal to schedule meetings starting at 17:00, 17:30 or 18:00. I guess theres a realisation that people arent potentially having to leave the office around that time to commute home.

[anxious_ant]

Deep Thought said:

Define "requires" though? If people have been able to do their jobs whilst WFH from say March this year to maybe the end of the year, i'm struggling to think how companies would make "requires" work?

Granted, if its proven that a particular type of work is only 80% effective at home or the employee doesnt like it, then yes, but otherwise "requires" could just be down to old fashioned views and prejudices seeping through again.

Perhaps it’s just the culture here. If a role is suitable for WFH it would’ve started as a WFH role. I do see some traditional office roles transitioning to WFH roles but I don’t foresee a major shift. Once the virus blows over things will more or less return to normal.

It’s just easier to communicate when everyone’s in the office, no need to schedule calls or worry about connectivity issues. Also as mentioned earlier the H&S concerns wouldn’t work for bigger corps. Might end up shelling more money to ensure workers have adequate equipment at home. It’s also a mine field to draft contracts where WFH is conditional based on someone’s home suitability.

Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see a revolution myself but don’t think it will happen here.

[JQ]

Deep Thought said:

anxious_ant said:

I think WFH would fizzle out in few months. Possibly gone by December.
Whilst it may work for minority, the majority requires the workforce at work, not in their homes. It’s just the way things work in the UK.

I still go into work some days and gotta say, I will definitely miss the lack of traffic, even going into Central London is relatively stress free currently.

Define "requires" though? If people have been able to do their jobs whilst WFH from say March this year to maybe the end of the year, i'm struggling to think how companies would make "requires" work?

Granted, if its proven that a particular type of work is only 80% effective at home or the employee doesnt like it, then yes, but otherwise "requires" could just be down to old fashioned views and prejudices seeping through again.

I can't speak for other people but advantages of working in our office :

Meetings are more efficient
Meetings are more inclusive
Discussions with colleagues are quicker
Sharing information is quicker
More collaboration between colleagues
More cross-selling within the office
Development of a team spirit
Friendships are developed (met my wife at work)
Beers after work
Meeting clients over a coffee or a beer
Training new staff
Nurturing talent
Developing that talent
Younger staff living in town

Whist everyone in my team has worked their socks off during lockdown, we are definitely not more efficient or profitable working from home in the long term. I guess if your job is to sit in front of a computer 8 hrs per day completing set tasks, then I guess WFH may be more efficient, but any job where you have to add value through meetings, relationships, discussions, etc, the office environment is a very efficient way of doing so.

[Kermit power]

Johnnytheboy said:

The other thing is the whole "ha ha my cat has jumped on the laptop" thing while a customer-facing worker is on a video call may be tolerated during a global pandemic, less so when we return to normality.

I'm not convinced about that. Yes if you had a dog barking endlessly whilst you were on a call, but even before lockdown, I'd have customers asking how my dog was, wanting to see him on camera and bringing their dogs in to say hello too.

Obviously I wouldn't force him on non dog people, but I do find that most people's pets in the background are a lot less distracting than people's colleagues in an office environment!

[Deep Thought]

JQ said:

I can't speak for other people but advantages of working in our office :

Meetings are more efficient
Meetings are more inclusive
Discussions with colleagues are quicker
Sharing information is quicker
More collaboration between colleagues
More cross-selling within the office
Development of a team spirit
Friendships are developed (met my wife at work)
Beers after work
Meeting clients over a coffee or a beer
Training new staff
Nurturing talent
Developing that talent
Younger staff living in town

Whist everyone in my team has worked their socks off during lockdown, we are definitely not more efficient or profitable working from home in the long term. I guess if your job is to sit in front of a computer 8 hrs per day completing set tasks, then I guess WFH may be more efficient, but any job where you have to add value through meetings, relationships, discussions, etc, the office environment is a very efficient way of doing so.

It does vary by company and team yes. Personally for me, of your list...

Is as easy if not easier with WFH
Meetings are more efficient
Meetings are more inclusive
Discussions with colleagues are quicker
Sharing information is quicker
More collaboration between colleagues
Training new staff

No notable difference or simple changes can mitigate
More cross-selling within the office
Development of a team spirit
Friendships are developed (met my wife at work)
Nurturing talent
Developing that talent

Things i'm not so bothered about
Beers after work
Meeting clients over a coffee or a beer
Younger staff living in town

We use MicroSoft Teams, so easy to set up meetings, chat, collaboration on docs. We've onboarded new team members remotely with no issues.

I think a hybrid model is the way forward - some people will WFH full or part time, others will need / want to be in the office.

I think theres a real opportunity to get away from the daily commuting drudge every day all for the sake of us all sitting at a desk in an office so we can all go sit in a meeting room.

I work for a large media insights company currently and they are definitely looking at ways to ensure people can keep working from home, rather than ways to make them all come back to the office.

Likewise in my wifes company they definitely want to embrace WFH - not to enforce it but definitely to offer it as an option and as an aid to recruitment, staff retention and cost reduction.

I think the cost savings comes from smaller / less office space requirements and perhaps the ability to recruit people more cheaply - eg, not having to pay London rates to get staff as they wont need to be living in London.