Return to office - your situation

[Sporky]

vulture1 said:

Personally I think the majority of people working from home are not doing as much work

How are you measuring that?

We've seen measurable productivity increase every time we've reduced office hours in favour of working from home.

[kingston12]

vulture1 said:

Flooble said:

The economy isn't particularly growing, so why are there so many new jobs?

Personally I think the majority of people working from home are not doing as much work and enjoying the freedom of it being very difficult to monitor. During proper lockdoen there was nothing to do so people worked more at home. Now not so much.

So you think that employees currently working from home are doing less work and that employers are just accepting that and increasing their workforce to take up the slack, leading to more jobs in the economy?

Productivity will vary by person, industry and role of course, but a lot of office-based jobs will be measured by output and hitting deadlines rather than any other type of 'monitoring'. It is that type of job that has seen the biggest increase in remote working, as it isn't as possible to do it in other areas of the economy.

My personal experience is that people tend to work longer hours from home than they did in the office. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not slacking of course, but I think a lot of people are keen to prove that they are productive working from home so that they less likely to be dragged back into the office fromt the end of the month.

[Welshbeef]

There has to be trust both ways employee and employer.

If you as a boss cannot trust your team then do you have the correct personnel?

Anyone with their head screwed on and wanting a career and progression would be always pushing for more responsibility more workload / expanded role. Basically making you very sticky with the employer. Make you totally a fundamental cog of the team & someone who steps up.

[vulture1]

kingston12 said:

vulture1 said:

Flooble said:

The economy isn't particularly growing, so why are there so many new jobs?

Personally I think the majority of people working from home are not doing as much work and enjoying the freedom of it being very difficult to monitor. During proper lockdoen there was nothing to do so people worked more at home. Now not so much.

So you think that employees currently working from home are doing less work and that employers are just accepting that and increasing their workforce to take up the slack, leading to more jobs in the economy?

Productivity will vary by person, industry and role of course, but a lot of office-based jobs will be measured by output and hitting deadlines rather than any other type of 'monitoring'. It is that type of job that has seen the biggest increase in remote working, as it isn't as possible to do it in other areas of the economy.

My personal experience is that people tend to work longer hours from home than they did in the office. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not slacking of course, but I think a lot of people are keen to prove that they are productive working from home so that they less likely to be dragged back into the office fromt the end of the month.

Your first paragraph yes that is what I think. Just based off friends and family an dwhat they have said they are doing/have done.
Personally I couldn't work from home. Separation of work life and home life is something I need. Nipping to the end of the garden wouldn't be enough for me tbh. You also lose alot of communication in person and little chats meet ups at work.

[Welshbeef]

vulture1 said:

Your first paragraph yes that is what I think. Just based off friends and family an dwhat they have said they are doing/have done.
Personally I couldn't work from home. Separation of work life and home life is something I need. Nipping to the end of the garden wouldn't be enough for me tbh. You also lose alot of communication in person and little chats meet ups at work.

Let’s wait until plan B is over and see how the land lies

[fiatpower]

hyphen said:

Along with people enjoying furlough too much to return, lockdown also coincided with the Contractor law changes which happened same time, and a lot of contractors did quit and retire.

I actually know quite a few who have done the opposite. They had been planning on retiring but find WFH suits them and find it really easy to carry on working when they don't have an hour or 2 commute to get to work.

[kingston12]

vulture1 said:

kingston12 said:

vulture1 said:

Flooble said:

The economy isn't particularly growing, so why are there so many new jobs?

Personally I think the majority of people working from home are not doing as much work and enjoying the freedom of it being very difficult to monitor. During proper lockdoen there was nothing to do so people worked more at home. Now not so much.

So you think that employees currently working from home are doing less work and that employers are just accepting that and increasing their workforce to take up the slack, leading to more jobs in the economy?

Productivity will vary by person, industry and role of course, but a lot of office-based jobs will be measured by output and hitting deadlines rather than any other type of 'monitoring'. It is that type of job that has seen the biggest increase in remote working, as it isn't as possible to do it in other areas of the economy.

My personal experience is that people tend to work longer hours from home than they did in the office. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not slacking of course, but I think a lot of people are keen to prove that they are productive working from home so that they less likely to be dragged back into the office from the end of the month.

Your first paragraph yes that is what I think. Just based off friends and family an dwhat they have said they are doing/have done.

Yep, it will be different for everyone. I just can't imagine many employers increasing their headcount and allowing low performers to carry on working and getting paid.

vulture1 said:

Personally I couldn't work from home. Separation of work life and home life is something I need. Nipping to the end of the garden wouldn't be enough for me tbh. You also lose alot of communication in person and little chats meet ups at work.

Absolutely. I don't think that working from home is as easy as is often made out, and it certainly doesn't suit everyone. For me, it's all about avoiding the commute.

I do think that I would benefit from a bit of time in the office for face to face communication, but any advantage is far outweighed by having to commute to do it. For those with an easy commute, working from home is probably dar less attractive.

[kingston12]

fiatpower said:

hyphen said:

Along with people enjoying furlough too much to return, lockdown also coincided with the Contractor law changes which happened same time, and a lot of contractors did quit and retire.

I actually know quite a few who have done the opposite. They had been planning on retiring but find WFH suits them and find it really easy to carry on working when they don't have an hour or 2 commute to get to work.

Yep, that's similar to my situation. I'm still a long way off retirement, but the work/life balance that I've got now makes the idea of all of those years ahead much more attractive now that there isn't a daily commute attached.

[Funk]

Podie said:

We are struggling to recruit with a 3 days in / 2 days out approach. Offers have been turned down and people have left, wanting more flexibility.

Interesting. When we all went back into the office last year it was on a "WFH M/F, office T/W/T" basis. I actually found I hated having a 'foot in both worlds' to be honest - I wanted one or the other and frankly didn't really mind which. My commute isn't bad (around 10 miles each way) and it's a small firm rather than a faceless corp.

Being back WFH for now has been OK but I think I actually prefer being in the office. Wasn't something I thought I'd be saying either; WFH should, on the face of it, be the more appealing option.

[Ashfordian]

Welshbeef said:

Anyone with their head screwed on and wanting a career and progression would be always pushing for more responsibility more workload / expanded role. Basically making you very sticky with the employer. Make you totally a fundamental cog of the team & someone who steps up.

Have you not noticed service has been poorer across the board?

That is because some/many will be doing just enough, and the go-getters will only be focussing on the 'limelight' jobs and looking upwards whilst putting as little time as possible into the drudgery.

Yes this happened before in the office, but is worse on both sides under WFH.

[Welshbeef]

Ashfordian said:

Welshbeef said:

Anyone with their head screwed on and wanting a career and progression would be always pushing for more responsibility more workload / expanded role. Basically making you very sticky with the employer. Make you totally a fundamental cog of the team & someone who steps up.

Have you not noticed service has been poorer across the board?

That is because some/many will be doing just enough, and the go-getters will only be focussing on the 'limelight' jobs and looking upwards whilst putting as little time as possible into the drudgery.

Yes this happened before in the office, but is worse on both sides under WFH.

This is true.

It’s just like contracts you always look out for the good margin ones and the poorly performing ones - but the rest tend to get less focus where as they could be making a lot more / more growth more margin

[ATG]

Funk said:

Podie said:

We are struggling to recruit with a 3 days in / 2 days out approach. Offers have been turned down and people have left, wanting more flexibility.

Interesting. When we all went back into the office last year it was on a "WFH M/F, office T/W/T" basis. I actually found I hated having a 'foot in both worlds' to be honest - I wanted one or the other and frankly didn't really mind which. My commute isn't bad (around 10 miles each way) and it's a small firm rather than a faceless corp.

Being back WFH for now has been OK but I think I actually prefer being in the office. Wasn't something I thought I'd be saying either; WFH should, on the face of it, be the more appealing option.

Hybrid risks being worst of all worlds. Company is still restricted to hiring people who are in commuting distance of the office. Company doesn't reduce office overheads unless they stagger the days their teams are in ... but then you end up with people in the office needing to work with people who are at home, and that requires everyone to work as if they are remote even when they are in the office.

[Welshbeef]

ATG said:

Hybrid risks being worst of all worlds. Company is still restricted to hiring people who are in commuting distance of the office. Company doesn't reduce office overheads unless they stagger the days their teams are in ... but then you end up with people in the office needing to work with people who are at home, and that requires everyone to work as if they are remote even when they are in the office.

Quite a few offices I know have been reformatted reducing desk space in favour of collaborative space. That’s not changing back.

The questions of I need my head down next few days to complete xyz task simply needs no office time that is perfect WFH.

Hybrid WFH setup is actually drawing back into work the mums who couldn’t really get to work before which is great news.

[Teebs]

Welshbeef said:

Quite a few offices I know have been reformatted reducing desk space in favour of collaborative space. That’s not changing back.

The questions of I need my head down next few days to complete xyz task simply needs no office time that is perfect WFH.

Hybrid WFH setup is actually drawing back into work the mums who couldn’t really get to work before which is great news.

Unfortunately, the last point "drawing back into work the mums who couldn't really get to work before" is a real double-edged sword from an employer's perspective. School drop-off at 9am, pick up at 3pm (reception class) + travel each way leaves what, 5 hours a day - not great if you're paid a full-time wage is it?

[Captain Answer]

Teebs said:

Welshbeef said:

Quite a few offices I know have been reformatted reducing desk space in favour of collaborative space. That’s not changing back.

The questions of I need my head down next few days to complete xyz task simply needs no office time that is perfect WFH.

Hybrid WFH setup is actually drawing back into work the mums who couldn’t really get to work before which is great news.

Unfortunately, the last point "drawing back into work the mums who couldn't really get to work before" is a real double-edged sword from an employer's perspective. School drop-off at 9am, pick up at 3pm (reception class) + travel each way leaves what, 5 hours a day - not great if you're paid a full-time wage is it?

I pick up and drop my younger son (10) on 3 days a week ever since I worked from home (3yrs), I block out two half hours in my day for that and am always back before they end - he is a bit older tho so doesn't need my attention while he's here, he and his brother will be upstairs doing homework together or playing x-box etc

I don't tend to take a lunch break ever, so on the whole the company aren't mssing out on any time that I should be working

We all got turned out the office again once the Plan B started, hoping they will let us back in again soon as I'd just started to enjoy being back in 1 day a week

[ATG]

Teebs said:

Welshbeef said:

Quite a few offices I know have been reformatted reducing desk space in favour of collaborative space. That’s not changing back.

The questions of I need my head down next few days to complete xyz task simply needs no office time that is perfect WFH.

Hybrid WFH setup is actually drawing back into work the mums who couldn’t really get to work before which is great news.

Unfortunately, the last point "drawing back into work the mums who couldn't really get to work before" is a real double-edged sword from an employer's perspective. School drop-off at 9am, pick up at 3pm (reception class) + travel each way leaves what, 5 hours a day - not great if you're paid a full-time wage is it?

No one is going to pay anyone a full-time wage for 5 hours work. The question is whether an employer would offer someone employment for 25 hours a week. Why not? If that's the difference between being able to hire someone you want and not being able to hire them at all, then why wouldn't an employer do so?

[Welshbeef]

ATG said:

No one is going to pay anyone a full-time wage for 5 hours work. The question is whether an employer would offer someone employment for 25 hours a week. Why not? If that's the difference between being able to hire someone you want and not being able to hire them at all, then why wouldn't an employer do so?

So so many excellent people who are and have been stay at home mums for childcare / commute makes it not possible.

Part time working can work on many roles & at some point these great resources may want to move back into full time

[Teebs]

ATG said:

No one is going to pay anyone a full-time wage for 5 hours work. The question is whether an employer would offer someone employment for 25 hours a week. Why not? If that's the difference between being able to hire someone you want and not being able to hire them at all, then why wouldn't an employer do so?

They do and I know numerous examples personally
I think it has been accepted during covid times but can't see the goodwill lasting much longer.

[Funk]

ATG said:

Funk said:

Podie said:

We are struggling to recruit with a 3 days in / 2 days out approach. Offers have been turned down and people have left, wanting more flexibility.

Interesting. When we all went back into the office last year it was on a "WFH M/F, office T/W/T" basis. I actually found I hated having a 'foot in both worlds' to be honest - I wanted one or the other and frankly didn't really mind which. My commute isn't bad (around 10 miles each way) and it's a small firm rather than a faceless corp.

Being back WFH for now has been OK but I think I actually prefer being in the office. Wasn't something I thought I'd be saying either; WFH should, on the face of it, be the more appealing option.

Hybrid risks being worst of all worlds. Company is still restricted to hiring people who are in commuting distance of the office. Company doesn't reduce office overheads unless they stagger the days their teams are in ... but then you end up with people in the office needing to work with people who are at home, and that requires everyone to work as if they are remote even when they are in the office.

I can see how that might affect new hires.

I think my company were just trying to either give people a bit more flexibility or a 'gentle' transition back to being in full time however for me it would've been better to be able to choose when I think I need to be in (or not) but then with such a small company (there's 6 of us in the office usually) you could end up with just a couple of people in the office and everyone else WFH. I suppose at least by mandating common days you know you wouldn't be the only one there all day.

We did take on an account manager the other end of the country about 18 months ago but I think he really struggled with WFH and getting his head around the role (we're an IT reseller, he came from a vendor). The management gave him a really good crack at it - a year - before letting him go, also I'm sure in part to what were then far trickier times, especially when you're effectively a new business generator. I'm not even sure whether being in the office with us for the latter part of the year would've made a significant difference, I suspect not. However it was trickier to include him in things that usually happen organically when you have a team of people in the same place even though we tried.

Looking at the news it looks like the Gov will rescind the WFHIYC rule and we'll be back in from the end of the month.

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 18th January 09:47

[Welshbeef]

Teebs said:

ATG said:

No one is going to pay anyone a full-time wage for 5 hours work. The question is whether an employer would offer someone employment for 25 hours a week. Why not? If that's the difference between being able to hire someone you want and not being able to hire them at all, then why wouldn't an employer do so?

They do and I know numerous examples personally
I think it has been accepted during covid times but can't see the goodwill lasting much longer.

There are according to today 1.2million vacancies.

We as s nation have talented resource at home in the form of homemaker (female or male) who have dropped out of employment due to crippling child care costs