# Return to office



## johnmck (11 Aug 2022)

My wife's company have asked her to return to the office. 
She has been working from home for 2 years. It is a job that doesn't require her to be in an office and she's actually more productive from home.
The company had a meeting a couple of months ago in which they said they were happy with anybody remote working and they could continue to do so.

Now they've changed their minds and given her an ultimatum. Return or quit. We now live in a different part of Ireland because of their decision to allow remote working. We have no intention of ever moving back to Dublin.

They about 30 staff with 20 people working remotely and only space in their new offices for 10!
Can they do this?
What if they are not asking all people to return?


----------



## Sarenco (11 Aug 2022)

johnmck said:


> Can they do this?


In a nutshell, yes they can.

The Government has published draft legislation which will give employees a right to request to work remotely.  But, even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request.

I suspect this is an increasingly common scenario.  A lot of employers that I’m familiar with have basically issued “back to the office” directives in recent weeks.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (11 Aug 2022)

johnmck said:


> Return or quit



It could also be a ploy to reduce staff numbers.


----------



## dubdub123 (11 Aug 2022)

Did she get an updated employment contract to reflect remote working?


----------



## Clamball (11 Aug 2022)

Yes they can do it, but they are a bit short-sited.  Your wife should start looking for other remote positions, companies are looking for staff all over.

I think they are short sited because they have not left the pandemic changes settle yet and companies are still defining their needs and requirements. 

It may be they leave the people who want to stay remote go but not be able to replace them with in office people, as the no 1 question being asked by applicants is what is your remote working policy.  So they may end up going with a remote replacement and loose all the skills you wife has.

She can also speak to her line manager and determine what they need her in the office for specifically, team meetings?, collaborative work, brain-storming?  They must be able to articulate the benefit of having her in person.


----------



## Steven Barrett (12 Aug 2022)

Story in the Financial Times



> There was the flummoxed investor who had told junior staff they should be in the office when clients visited, only to have those staff say: thanks for the feedback but I would rather keep working from home.
> 
> A consultant told me of a younger colleague who refused to travel abroad to client meetings any more, insisting they could be done online. And a financial adviser who fumed about young people logging in to important internal meetings where they kept their cameras off and said nothing.



Employers have to seek that balance. What happened the OP is wrong for an employer to say they have a WFH policy and then change their mind. They are entitled to do so though. 

I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all. Plus there is the social element of work as well.


----------



## Purple (12 Aug 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all.


Everybody talks about having a career nowadays but many people actually just want a job. If you structure your life around kids, hobbies, looking after elderly parents etc then the chances are you have a job, not a career, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


Steven Barrett said:


> Plus there is the social element of work as well.


I think that's really important for lots of work related and personal wellbeing reasons.


----------



## Peanuts20 (12 Aug 2022)

Does her employers have a remote work policy? Does her contract of employment state where her place of work is and was anything documented at the time/emails confirming she can work from home etc. Is she the only one being asked to do this?


----------



## Steven Barrett (12 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Everybody talks about having a career nowadays but many people actually just want a job. I*f you structure your life around kids, hobbies, looking after elderly parents etc* then the chances are you have a job, not a career, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I think that's really important for lots of work related and personal wellbeing reasons.


No, there is nothing wrong with just having a job. Younger people obviously start at the bottom and usually want to progress and earn more money. There then comes a time for a lot of people where the money is enough to have a family, buy a home etc and people are content. Others push on to progress to hirer roles. 

But if someone came to me and told me that they want to structure their lives around their kids, hobbies, elderly parents and that is why they wanted to work from home all the time, I would presume they want to do that on the time I was paying them to work. 

That is not to say you cannot be flexible and allow people time off to do these things, but the employee would need to be honest.


----------



## DublinHead54 (12 Aug 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all. Plus there is the social element of work as well.



Career prospects and promotion should not be based on 'being seen by your boss' in 2022. An individual should have a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this. That is why it shouldn't really matter if they work from home or work in an office.

I work for a fully remote company after working in Financial services for years and through the pandemic. I have much clearer career prospects in my remote role than I did whilst working in an office.

I do agree that it is important to have a social connection and connect in person in teams. However, my last employer used the rational of 'knowledge transfer' when in the office which was just a lazy excuse.


----------



## Purple (12 Aug 2022)

Dublinbay12 said:


> Career prospects and promotion should not be based on 'being seen by your boss' in 2022. An individual should have a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this. That is why it shouldn't really matter if they work from home or work in an office.
> 
> I work for a fully remote company after working in Financial services for years and through the pandemic. I have much clearer career prospects in my remote role than I did whilst working in an office.
> 
> I do agree that it is important to have a social connection and connect in person in teams. However, my last employer used the rational of 'knowledge transfer' when in the office which was just a lazy excuse.


It's worth remembering that most people work in the SME sector where "_a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this_" just doesn't exist. If any of us is fortunate enough to have a job where this is an expectation then we should be thankful for our good fortune.


----------



## Peanuts20 (12 Aug 2022)

I work fully remote, my boss is in Spain, his boss in Germany and her boss is in the US. My team are all over the world, from India to the Uk and Ireland and Poland Being in the office is good from a training perspective and for some companies, there is a need to handle physical goods but for a lot of people, there is no need to be. In some cases, management are so stuck in the dark ages that they think people have to work 9-5 and will only work if they are looking over their shoulder. 

Work has changed for a lot of people, from clocking in 9-5 to outcome based


----------



## Leo (12 Aug 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> In some cases, management are so stuck in the dark ages that they think people have to work 9-5 and will only work if they are looking over their shoulder.


And how much of that is down to weak management who don't understand their space, and just want their staff (the real SMEs) always on hand in case their boss asks a tough question!


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> In a nutshell, yes they can.
> 
> The Government has published draft legislation which will give employees a right to request to work remotely.  But, even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request.
> 
> I suspect this is an increasingly common scenario.  A lot of employers that I’m familiar with have basically issued “back to the office” directives in recent weeks.


But if they are only asking specific staff to return - so won't they then have to justify why they are asking her specifically to return? 

OP can you clarify are they asking all the people in your wife's role to return?


----------



## Sarenco (12 Aug 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> But if they are only asking specific staff to return - so won't they then have to justify why they are asking her specifically to return?


No, there's no requirement at the moment for an employer to justify where a particular employee is required to work.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> No, there's no requirement at the moment for an employer to justify where a particular employee is required to work.


"even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request."

So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want? Demand an employee return to work even if they allow another employee in same role to work from home? Let's assume both employees have been in the company with same service duration.
Implicitly therefore the role can be done remotely.


----------



## Purple (12 Aug 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> "even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request."
> 
> So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want? Demand an employee return to work even if they allow another employee in same role to work from home? Let's assume both employees have been in the company with same service duration.
> Implicitly therefore the role can be done remotely.


It would be odd if the location they worked at was up the employee. 
The employee is free to choose who they work for. The location is part of that decision.


----------



## Sarenco (12 Aug 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want?


The current *draft *legislation provides that an employer can decline a request to work remotely on any of the following grounds:

(a) The Nature of the work not allowing for the work to be done remotely; 
(b) Cannot reorganise work among existing staff; 
(c) Potential Negative impact on quality of business product or service; 
(d) Potential Negative impact on performance of employee or other employees; 
(e) Burden of Additional Costs, taking into account the financial and other costs entailed and the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business;
(f) Concerns for the protection of business confidentiality or intellectual property; 
(g) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on health and safety grounds; 
(h) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on data protection grounds; 
(i) Concerns for the internet connectivity of the proposed remote working location;
(j) Concerns for the commute between the proposed remote working location and employer’s on-site location; 
(k) The proposed remote working arrangement conflicts with the provisions of an applicable collective agreement;  
(l) Planned structural changes would render any of (a) to (k) applicable; or 
(m) Employee is the subject of ongoing or recently concluded formal disciplinary process.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> It would be odd if the location they worked at was up the employee.
> The employee is free to choose who they work for. The location is part of that decision.


What's the point of the legislation then?

And also, are there not considerations re: application of company policy differently to employees of same service and how that could be viewed by the WRC.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> The current *draft *legislation provides that an employer can decline a request to work remotely on any of the following grounds:
> 
> (a) The Nature of the work not allowing for the work to be done remotely;
> (b) Cannot reorganise work among existing staff;
> ...


So the OP's wife should be asking for which of these it was refused against. If other staff in same role can work remotely that would make questionable a decline under a-f, k, l, m. It would only be g-j.


----------



## Sarenco (12 Aug 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> So the OP's wife should be asking for which of these it was refused against.


 Nope.

As previously emphasised, that’s *draft* legislation - it ain’t the law yet.


----------



## Purple (12 Aug 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> What's the point of the legislation then?


To keep the Unions happy. The idea that employees should have a legal right to work from home is ridiculous and a legal right to ask to work from home is meaningless.



odyssey06 said:


> And also, are there not considerations re: application of company policy differently to employees of same service and how that could be viewed by the WRC.


Yes, that could certainly be an issue.


----------



## Peanuts20 (12 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> And how much of that is down to weak management who don't understand their space, and just want their staff (the real SMEs) always on hand in case their boss asks a tough question!


absolutely, although it is actually easier using Teams or the like, a manager can message his minions on the QT and then pretend he knows what he is talking about.


----------



## odyssey06 (12 Aug 2022)

Sarenco said:


> Nope.
> 
> As previously emphasised, that’s *draft* legislation - it ain’t the law yet.



The law was proposed in January and still not on the books! Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder though tactically should the person in question ask the grounds? It might make the employer think twice.


----------



## phoenix53 (12 Aug 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> Story in the Financial Times
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thoroughly agree with younger/junior people being in the office.  I've seen the toll working from home has on junior trainees in particular. They are missing out on all the networking, learning on the job, craic.  The only problem is if all the senior people are at home, it won't be much help to their learning.  A balance would be good.


----------



## messyleo (12 Aug 2022)

I also think remote working is great for high performers, who are intrinsically motivated and can work independently and with initiative, but very much less so for lower performers and here in lies a big problem imo. It's a lot harder to manage poor performers remotely and a lot easier to escape the difficult conversations if you are not performing and you only have to face your manager once a week on a teams call and it's over and done with vs 40 hours in the office!


----------



## dubdub123 (12 Aug 2022)

It does sound like they want to get rid of people and avoid paying redundancy.  Company sounds pretty unscrupulous as they already said remote working was allowed, and now they want your wife back in office.
Can your wife find a role in another company? 
Did the existing company send any communication via email or such like  that ALL employees were going remote?
Was the wifes contract updated? 
Are they insisting on 100% in the office or hybrid? Is there any way she could do that, even short term? Or take parental leave etc?


----------



## joe sod (13 Aug 2022)

phoenix53 said:


> I thoroughly agree with younger/junior people being in the office.  I've seen the toll working from home has on junior trainees in particular. They are missing out on all the networking, learning on the job, craic.  The only problem is if all the senior people are at home, it won't be much help to their learning.  A balance would be good.


That's the issue  though , how do the younger  staff become skilled whenl all the older ones are at home ? How do you then differentiate   between  those allowed to work from home  and those that don't . All the older guys benefited from the traditional system of on site training  from their older peers  years ago and now it's like they want to pull up the drawbridge behind them. Employers are simply now calling time on this now that the pandemic and mandated WFH is long over.

Another factor never discuss about this is the unfairness on workers that must travel to work and were the essential workers that kept the country running during the pandemic. If you have differentiate  working conditions between those that allowed to WFH and those forced to drive to work  every day ,it doesn't  do much for company solidarity.

Anecdotallying you hear of instances where something  was missed or overlooked because  so and so was working from home and was not there  on site to rectify  an issue  immediately. Also if you are not on site the repercussions  from making mistakes  are not immediately  evident  to you as you are safe at home far away  from it all


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2022)

joe sod said:


> Another factor never discuss about this is the unfairness on workers that must travel to work and were the essential workers that kept the country running during the pandemic.


Yep, Supermarket employees, truck drivers, warehouse employees, water and waste water treatment plant employees, power station employees etc all kept the country going during the pandemic. They were the most essential workers. 
We shouldn't forget hospital employees either, they were important too. 

Most jobs require the employee to be on site. Most people don't work in offices. The whole "getting back to the office" narrative from the Government and Civil Service  and this proposed legislation shows a rather myopic view of the world.


----------



## Salvadore (17 Aug 2022)

dubdub123 said:


> Did she get an updated employment contract to reflect remote working?


That’s the ultimate question.

Assuming the original terms of employment specified the place of employment, unless these have been formally amended and agreed, they continue to apply.

The insistence on workers to return to their workplaces, in compliance with their contracts but contrary to recent custom and practice, hasn’t been tested yet by the WRC but it’s surely only a matter of time.


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2022)

Salvadore said:


> That’s the ultimate question.
> 
> Assuming the original terms of employment specified the place of employment, unless these have been formally amended and agreed, they continue to apply.
> 
> The insistence on workers to return to their workplaces, in compliance with their contracts but contrary to recent custom and practice, hasn’t been tested yet by the WRC but it’s surely only a matter of time.


True, but in this case the below might have some bearing on things;


johnmck said:


> The company had a meeting a couple of months ago in which they said they were happy with anybody remote working and they could continue to do so.


----------



## elcato (18 Aug 2022)

The company I work for continually say we will not be required to return to the office unless we want to at board level (via 3 montly all-hands) but at the same time, locally, they (management) are meeting to see what 'incentives' they can give to get people to come back into the office. I can see it all ending in tears


----------



## johnmck (19 Aug 2022)

phoenix53 said:


> I thoroughly agree with younger/junior people being in the office.  I've seen the toll working from home has on junior trainees in particular. They are missing out on all the networking, learning on the job, craic.  The only problem is if all the senior people are at home, it won't be much help to their learning.  A balance would be good.


And have younger people paying massive rents in Dublin ,with no ability to save etc. You'll find younger people flocking to remote working jobs to start saving and living outside rip off Dublin


----------



## johnmck (19 Aug 2022)

dubdub123 said:


> It does sound like they want to get rid of people and avoid paying redundancy.  Company sounds pretty unscrupulous as they already said remote working was allowed, and now they want your wife back in office.
> Can your wife find a role in another company?
> Did the existing company send any communication via email or such like  that ALL employees were going remote?
> Was the wifes contract updated?
> Are they insisting on 100% in the office or hybrid? Is there any way she could do that, even short term? Or take parental leave etc?


Contract wasn't updated. They've created a rushed remote working policy that states 3 days in office , 2 days from home. Not really remote is it if you're in the office more than home. Anyway, she's highly skilled and will be appreciated elsewhere. We now live in the country away from rip off Dublin and we couldnt be happier


----------



## dubdub123 (19 Aug 2022)

There's a lot of remote roles out there, particularly across software development and related roles. 
It does sound like this company is trying to downsize,  by forcing people to quit, but not pay redundancy. There may be others here who know about employment law etc, but notbsure if thats worth the stress.
If she can hold this job for the minute, while shes looking elsewhere is probably her best bet.


----------



## ArthurMcB (19 Aug 2022)

johnmck said:


> rip off Dublin


Rip off dublin?

Last time I checked everywhere in Ireland is a rip off. Every, single, nook and cranny.


----------



## johnmck (19 Aug 2022)

ArthurMcB said:


> Rip off dublin?
> 
> Last time I checked everywhere in Ireland is a rip off. Every, single, nook and cranny.


1 bed apartment Dublin €2000 per month to rent. 
Renting a 4 bed house in the country , €750 per month....
You do the math


----------



## ArthurMcB (19 Aug 2022)

johnmck said:


> 1 bed apartment Dublin €2000 per month to rent.
> Renting a 4 bed house in the country , €750 per month....
> You do the math


No doubt about it, property is more expensive in dublin and always has been as long as i can remeber and same across the world.

But, my point, is simply that - property aside, the rest of the country is as expensive and as much a rip off as dublin.

In fact more so in some ways. At least in dublin you coukd prob justify a €3.50 coffee on basis of rent. Not so, in parts of the west. Yet the same coffee is still €3.50. Just 1 example, i could give more.


----------



## johnmck (19 Aug 2022)

ArthurMcB said:


> No doubt about it, property is more expensive in dublin and always has been as long as i can remeber and same across the world.
> 
> But, my point, is simply that - property aside, the rest of the country is as expensive and as much a rip off as dublin.
> 
> In fact more so in some ways. At least in dublin you coukd prob justify a €3.50 coffee on basis of rent. Not so, in parts of the west. Yet the same coffee is still €3.50. Just 1 example, i could give more.


True, was in Sligo last weekend. In what used to be a good restaurant, now turned into muck. Worst food I've had in years. 3 of us paid €75 for a lunch. Total rip off. €13 for a indigestible soggy Bruschetta


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Aug 2022)

phoenix53 said:


> I thoroughly agree with younger/junior people being in the office.  I've seen the toll working from home has on junior trainees in particular. They are missing out on all the networking, learning on the job, craic.  The only problem is if all the senior people are at home, it won't be much help to their learning.  A balance would be good.



That assumes there is a culture of knowledge transfer in the organization. 

But many places complain they can't find People with the right skills and experience. I wonder how many have internal mentoring and training programs in place. 

But many people find they have to change jobs frequently to progress. Which suggests this knowledge transfer isn't all that common. 

I am biased in all this having worked remotely and in eLearning. I don't think being in office or remotely is inherently better or worse. It depends on the quality of all the people involved. Its too easy to take shortcut on quality doing it remotely or in the office. Then use this as excuse to push an agenda. 

Working and learning remotely has been a thing for decades. Bit late to tell people it doesn't work. 

I don't disagree with with you that there are advantages to being in the office and for some, many it's the right place for them. I'm just broadening that discussion. 

All that said. Employees don't be able to dictate their terms. Other than voting with their feet and changing jobs to those with the conditions they prefer. Be that working in an office or working remotely, or a hybrid of both.


----------



## Salvadore (20 Aug 2022)

johnmck said:


> 1 bed apartment Dublin €2000 per month to rent.
> Renting a 4 bed house in the country , €750 per month....
> You do the math


That’s not necessarily a rip off. It’s a reflection of demand relative to supply. 

The capacity to work remotely however gives workers the opportunity to break free from the economic constraints of living in Dublin and the more people that choose this route, the better all around.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2022)

Salvadore said:


> That’s not necessarily a rip off. It’s a reflection of demand relative to supply.


Yep, getting ripped off is when you don’t get what you paid for. Knowingly paying a high price for something is a different thing. It might be bad value but it’s not getting ripped off.


----------



## ArthurMcB (22 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Yep, getting ripped off is when you don’t get what you paid for. Knowingly paying a high price for something is a different thing. It might be bad value but it’s not getting ripped off.


Whatever. Ok. Ireland is not a rip off but it is atrocious value then.


----------



## Purple (22 Aug 2022)

ArthurMcB said:


> Whatever. Ok. Ireland is not a rip off but it is atrocious value then.


It is, but there are reasons for that such as;

We're an island so it costs more to get stuff here
We are small so we lack logistical economies of scale
We have very high levels of social transfers which results in a high wages at the bottom end of the scale and a high minimum wage (all good things in my opinion)
We are very litigious and that along with an expensive and inefficient legal system and high levels of compensation, plus high property prices and construction wages, drives up insurance costs.
There are loads of reasons we are expensive, some good and more bad, but that's not the same as being ripped off.


----------



## ArthurMcB (22 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> It is, but there are reasons for that such as;
> 
> We're an island so it costs more to get stuff here
> We are small so we lack logistical economies of scale
> ...


Agreed 100%


----------



## Leo (22 Aug 2022)

Too much ranting at this point.


----------

