# Working from home clarified



## Brendan Burgess

€3.20 per day without BIK

employee will be able to claim tax relief for heat, light and now broadband.


----------



## Black_Knight

Brendan Burgess said:


> €3.20 per day without BIK
> 
> employee will be able to claim tax relief for heat, light and now broadband.


Nothing so. If I read it right, annual bills of 2k would allow for €200 claimable at up to the 40% tax rate so €80. 

€3.20 a day is excellent by comparison.


----------



## DublinHead54

How does this work in practice? Does your employer have to change your contract to be a permanent wfh?


----------



## Black_Knight

Dublinbay12 said:


> How does this work in practice? Does your employer have to change your contract to be a permanent wfh?


If it's just claiming it back, you just need a letter from your employer stating you've been working from home. Don't have specifics, but that's about it afaik


----------



## ClubMan

Black_Knight said:


> Nothing so. If I read it right, annual bills of 2k would allow for €200 claimable at up to the 40% tax rate so €80.


I had been meaning to look into it (WFH since March) but on the basis of that ballpark figure I don't think it's worth the bother.


----------



## Black_Knight

If it's trivial to claim then why not, but yeah, it's barely anything. €3.30 a day would be about €600.


----------



## Tickle

Black_Knight said:


> Nothing so. If I read it right, annual bills of 2k would allow for €200 claimable at up to the 40% tax rate so €80.


Not quite so. Claims can be made for legitimate vouched expenses incurred to perform ones duties of employment. The 10% figure you are referring to is a Revenue guideline, but if you have legitimate vouched expenses beyond that, then you can claim for them.


----------



## ClubMan

I wonder how many people who could actually save real money by switching mortgage provider will become obsessed by this...


----------



## Brendan Burgess

ClubMan said:


> I wonder how many people who could actually save real money by switching mortgage provider will become obsessed by this...



You can do both!


----------



## theresa1

Most employers won't do the €3.20 per day as not legally obliged to do.
They should have simplified the process for employee at least in this Budget.
People won't spend a few hours trying to get hold off bills online, doing calculation's etc.


----------



## AndroidMan

Isnt this out of the employers hands?
I would probably be wary of approaching my employer right now as things not going so well.
But if it is a claim that you can make on ROS then that would be simpler.


----------



## elcato

Can the whole broadband be used rather than the 10% if you had to get it in especially i.e. €800 rather than the 10% ? Or am I reading this wrong ?


----------



## ClubMan

Brendan Burgess said:


> You can do both!


I'm talking about people who will get obsessed by €3.20 per day or the relief equivalent and spend time on that *instead* of seeing the bigger picture and dealing with stuff like mortgage switching etc.


----------



## Tickle

elcato said:


> Can the whole broadband be used rather than the 10% if you had to get it in especially i.e. €800 rather than the 10% ? Or am I reading this wrong ?


You'd have to be able to vouch for that and prove that the expense is incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of your employment duties.


----------



## Black_Knight

For the purposes of this year's tax claims, the Wendie house we got our daughter is my home office, and thus claimable.


----------



## ArthurMcB

Broadband 100% as we dont use it for anything other my need for work
Light and heat 10%, basically nout.
Vouched expenses....screen and seat


What else....


----------



## ClubMan

Makeup for zoom calls?


----------



## joe sod

Didn't Michael McGrath say that they were not going to give any big tax incentives to WFH as it has already happened and in any case people are saving money, they don't need to be pushing an open door. It was more important to get life and business back into the city centres and that is where the thrust of the incentives would go. Those businesses that have been hardest hit by the pandemic should get the most


----------



## Purple

joe sod said:


> Didn't Michael McGrath say that they were not going to give any big tax incentives to WFH as it has already happened and in any case people are saving money, they don't need to be pushing an open door. It was more important to get life and business back into the city centres and that is where the thrust of the incentives would go. Those businesses that have been hardest hit by the pandemic should get the most


Well it's hard to argue with that. 

Employer/Government;
_"You don't have to have the expense of getting to and from work and can save all that time you used to spend commuting. You can poo in your own toilet, eat lunch and make coffee at home, but the table and chair you use won't be tax deductible."_

Employee working from home:_
"What!! that's disgraceful!"_


----------



## Thirsty

Would prefer to be in the office: someone else pays for the heating, cleans the bathrooms and cooks my lunch every day.

Doing my own cooking and cleaning is getting to be a real bore.


----------



## Purple

Thirsty said:


> Would prefer to be in the office: someone else pays for the heating, cleans the bathrooms and cooks my lunch every day.
> 
> Doing my own cooking and cleaning is getting to be a real bore.


Do you get your lunch cooked and handed to you for free? Do you work in Aer Lingus in the 80's?


----------



## AndroidMan

Yeah.. bet he is missing the tea trolly and buscuits at 10.15am and 3.15pm


----------



## Thirsty

Darn right


----------



## joe sod

Many companies reporting falls in total productivity since WFH began in March, much harder and slower to get problems solved remotely and very difficult to train new employees. Of course established employees may claim that as individuals they are now more productive, but in total productivity has definitely fallen.


----------



## ginslia

Black_Knight said:


> Nothing so. If I read it right, annual bills of 2k would allow for €200 claimable at up to the 40% tax rate so €80.
> 
> €3.20 a day is excellent by comparison.



I think its slightly worse than that - say 2k in bills * workdays/totaldays * 10% = eligible amount * tax rate = refund.  I'm not sure if tax rate is 20% used for other claims like medical or 40% marginal rate.  Lucky if you get 50?


----------



## Peanuts20

I'm not sure this is greatly different then what was there previously. the €3.20 existed prior to the budget as did the ability to claim relief for utilities but most people didn't claim since it was a small fraction of the utility bill was and revenue often questioned it. The only major change was an extension of utilities to include broadband and also claiming for other things. I bought a new desk which only I use so my intent would be to claim relief for that if my understanding is correct


----------



## ClubMan

joe sod said:


> Many companies reporting falls in total productivity since WFH began in March


Any objective data to support that claim?
Sounds very anecdotal.


----------



## lledlledlled

Productivity wise, i find 2 days from home, 3 days in the office works best. I'm out of the loop if i stay at home all week. It depends on the industry though.


----------



## Itchy

Many companies reporting increases in total productivity since WFH began in March, much easier and quicker to get problems solved remotely and very efficient to train new employees. Of course established employees may claim that as individuals they are now less productive, but in total productivity has definitely risen.


----------



## joe sod

ClubMan said:


> Any objective data to support that claim?
> Sounds very anecdotal.


Well I know the insurance industry productivity is 75% of what it was pre Covid, problems with security and access when employees trying to access data from unsecure home workspaces, no immediate IT backup, no "handholding" employees through problems by experienced colleagues. Therefore if a problem can't be solved by the employee at home they have nothing to do for the day, also good excuse if you don't want to work.  In other words real world stuff that is not sexy to talk about. I doubt the ESRI is going to do a comprehensive study of productivity from WFH because they might get the wrong answer and it would also conflict with the government message on reducing Corona . maybe next year when they want get the real economy back up and running.


----------



## ClubMan

joe sod said:


> Well I know the insurance industry productivity is 75% of what it was pre Covid, problems with security and access when employees trying to access data from unsecure home workspaces, no immediate IT backup, no "handholding" employees through problems by experienced colleagues. Therefore if a problem can't be solved by the employee at home they have nothing to do for the day, also good excuse if you don't want to work.  In other words real world stuff that is not sexy to talk about. I doubt the ESRI is going to do a comprehensive study of productivity from WFH because they might get the wrong answer and it would also conflict with the government message on reducing Corona . maybe next year when they want get the real economy back up and running.


So just anecdotes then?
Fair enough...


----------



## ClubMan

Itchy said:


> Many companies reporting increases in total productivity since WFH began in March, much easier and quicker to get problems solved remotely and very efficient to train new employees. Of course established employees may claim that as individuals they are now less productive, but in total productivity has definitely risen.


Same question as I posed to @joe sod earlier applies here.


----------



## MrEarl

Productivity at many businesses has increased, as a result of WFH.

Overheads such as power and heat, have been shifted from employer to employee, in most cases, without any compensation.

The tax break to recognise the increased costs that employees are incurring, is made administratively cumbersome

Go figure who wins and who loses out here!


----------



## joe sod

MrEarl said:


> Productivity at many businesses has increased, as a result of WFH.


have you any data to back that up, probably not, but in any case can you explain why you think it has increased given the major problems with it that  I discussed in an earlier post?


MrEarl said:


> Overheads such as power and heat, have been shifted from employer to employee, in most cases, without any compensation.


But the employer is still paying for these costs and many more standing charges like insurance, rent, building maintenance etc, their costs might only be marginally reduced because of staff not being in the building. Should the employer be compensated for these losses ? Will employers who are facing financial difficulties as a result of lockdowns ask for pay cuts because the costs for their employees have been reduced alot, this may not be an immediate issue but maybe that will be the quid pro quo, you can continue to WFH but you must accept a pay cut for this.


----------



## becky

Purple said:


> Do you get your lunch cooked and handed to you for free? Do you work in Aer Lingus in the 80's?


 A friend of mine gets her lunch delivered to her house everyday. She works for a big US  company.


----------



## Thirsty

Are the two items related?


----------



## Purple

becky said:


> A friend of mine gets her lunch delivered to her house everyday. She works for a big US  company.


By her employer or is she just lazy?


----------



## Thirsty

Why does having meals delivered = laziness?


----------



## Purple

Thirsty said:


> Why does having meals delivered = laziness?


Your lunch? Can they not make/buy a sandwich?


----------



## AAAContributor

Gordon Gekko has strong views on the subject of lunch


----------



## Branz

Purple said:


> By her employer or is she just lazy?


So Becky says her pal gets the lunch delivered every day.
Why is it Ok if the employer is paying but makes her lazy if not.
What are you making Becky's statement mean?


----------



## Purple

Branz said:


> So Becky says her pal gets the lunch delivered every day.
> Why is it Ok if the employer is paying but makes her lazy if not.
> What are you making Becky's statement mean?


You're reading too much into my post.
If it's upsetting you I withdraw the comment unreservedly and offer my unconditional apology to the unnamed stranger Becky mentioned and to Becky for the mental anguish I caused.


----------



## Thirsty

Proper order!


----------



## becky

Purple said:


> By her employer or is she just lazy?


Paid by the employer, delivered to employees wfh. If she wants to buy lunch, there is a list of local places where they get 25% off.


----------



## faketales

My brother works for a large financial company. They are not renewing / opting out of 50% of office leases so when staff do go back it won't be 5 days and will invole hot desking. 

In these situations the company is clearly transferring costs to the employee.  It would seem reasonable that they pay something per day to staff wfh.


----------



## Delboy

faketales said:


> My brother works for a large financial company. They are not renewing / opting out of 50% of office leases so when staff do go back it won't be 5 days and will invole hot desking.
> 
> In these situations the company is clearly transferring costs to the employee.  It would seem reasonable that they pay something per day to staff wfh.


Your reading of the situation is all wrong. The employers are clearly transferring savings to their Shareholders/Management


----------



## Purple

Delboy said:


> Your reading of the situation is all wrong. The employers are clearly transferring savings to their Shareholders/Management


It can be both.


----------



## Leo

This will be a very mixed bag, great for some, good for others, poor to terrible for more. For an employee was spending 90+ minutes a day commuting, their work week just got a lot shorter for the same pay! Utilities will cost more, but some families will no longer need a second car, childcare might become simpler, 

The company I work for is also cutting office space while taking on more staff, they're still trying to work out the details, but so far are saying anyone who really wants to be in the office will have that choice. If more people chose that than there is seating available will be when it gets interesting.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> For an employee was spending 90+ minutes a day commuting, their work week just got a lot shorter for the same pay


Those who have small kids or kids with special needs at home/ are living in a small apartment or house share or have other constraints will probably prefer to go to the office which is fine if that option remains available. I've always worked on the basis that you can't change an employees T's & C's without their agreement. Obviously only the most bearded of the Brethren would object to changes to avoid closure or keep people safe but companies shouldn't treat this as a quick way to take out cost.


----------



## Leo

Purple said:


> Those who have small kids or kids with special needs at home/ are living in a small apartment or house share or have other constraints will probably prefer to go to the office which is fine if that option remains available.



We take on graduates and staff from abroad, I can't imagine working from home would be desirable for many in that community either!



Purple said:


> but companies shouldn't treat this as a quick way to take out cost.



Absolutely agree. There will always be the few who do try to exploit any situation, but they usually suffer in industries where there is sufficient demand that employees can easily move.


----------



## WolfeTone

Purple said:


> but companies shouldn't treat this as a quick way to take out cost.



They shouldn't, but they will. 

I'm all for the solidarity being shown between employers and employees with flexible working arrangements facilitating each other as much as they can during a national health crisis. 
But when it's over, I assume within my lifetime but not taking anything for granted, then the real weighing up of the pros and cons will have to be scrutinised. 

Things like not having to travel to work will be sold as a benefit bestowed by an employer to an employee, but it is not, as generally the cost of travelling to work is a cost borne by the employee. 
Companies will save a tidy packet on office space rent, but what price is the space being utilised in a private residence? 
If people can work remotely, from their own homes, is the office space in a private residence the same in D4 as in Leitrim? 
Interesting times ahead.


----------



## joe sod

Could a hierarchy form where workers who work on site are deemed more important and WFH could become a way for companies to gradually ease out workers that are not really fundamental to the business any longer. Obviously this is not a factor now as most office based staff are WFH.


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> Could a hierarchy form where workers who work on site are deemed more important and WFH could become a way for companies to gradually ease out workers that are not really fundamental to the business any longer. Obviously this is not a factor now as most office based staff are WFH.



We've had varying degrees of WFH for years and you do see that, but generally just from poor managers who like to have someone close by who can step in and answer questions they should be able to answer themselves.


----------



## PGF2016

joe sod said:


> Could a hierarchy form where workers who work on site are deemed more important and WFH could become a way for companies to gradually ease out workers that are not really fundamental to the business any longer. Obviously this is not a factor now as most office based staff are WFH.


Don't see this happening. From working in tech I see people with years of in depth knowledge and experience working from home. There are also people on site who do basic unskilled work. The WFH people are much more valuable to the company. The location from which you work from is less important than the value you can provide to the employer and the ease with which you could be replaced.


----------



## MugsGame

Agreed, I was already WFHing 2-3 days a week, as most of the teams I work with are not in Dublin.


----------



## elcato

WolfeTone said:


> Things like not having to travel to work will be sold as a benefit bestowed by an employer to an employee, but it is not, as generally the cost of travelling to work is a cost borne by the employee.


WFH is a benefit to a lot of employees though and it's really not so much the monitory cost of a commute. My employer does not encourage wfh and only facilitates it if the employee requests it. They value the presence and social side of work. Of course I suspect if the finance department says it's too dear they would think otherwise.


----------



## ArthurMcB

Wfh is a win win for a lot of employees and employers. It has been in place for over 10 years in a lot of orgs as a flexible alternative to the office and on a smaller scale obviously. And it clearly works.


----------



## faketales

WolfeTone said:


> They shouldn't, but they will.
> 
> I'm all for the solidarity being shown between employers and employees with flexible working arrangements facilitating each other as much as they can during a national health crisis.
> But when it's over, I assume within my lifetime but not taking anything for granted, then the real weighing up of the pros and cons will have to be scrutinised.
> 
> Things like not having to travel to work will be sold as a benefit bestowed by an employer to an employee, but it is not, as generally the cost of travelling to work is a cost borne by the employee.
> Companies will save a tidy packet on office space rent, but what price is the space being utilised in a private residence?
> If people can work remotely, from their own homes, is the office space in a private residence the same in D4 as in Leitrim?
> Interesting times ahead.




Interesting post. Your correct the costs associated with travelling to the office are all on the employee, commute time, lunches etc. The employer isn't allowing the employee to work from home out of good will. There may be some initial costs taken on by the employer eg. laptop and mobile but they will be offset pretty quickly if office space can be reduced. 

While I have made savings by wfh short term. I'm in a one bed apartment with my girlfriend. Its really not sustainable long term to be working in the kitchen / living room. Renting a two bed of the same standard would probably cost 500e more wiping out any savings we are making.


----------



## Purple

faketales said:


> Interesting post. Your correct the costs associated with travelling to the office are all on the employee, commute time, lunches etc. The employer isn't allowing the employee to work from home out of good will. There may be some initial costs taken on by the employer eg. laptop and mobile but they will be offset pretty quickly if office space can be reduced.
> 
> While I have made savings by wfh short term. I'm in a one bed apartment with my girlfriend. Its really not sustainable long term to be working in the kitchen / living room. Renting a two bed of the same standard would probably cost 500e more wiping out any savings we are making.


The issue for the employer is productivity; will their organisation will be as productive with everyone working from home and if it drops can they restructure/invest/train to get it back to where it was. While rent and rates etc are high they probably don't outweigh a well structured business model. 
I completely agree that it's not sustainable for a couple in a one-bed apartment and if small children are in the mix it's a disaster.


----------



## polar

Returning to this having been clarified - can anyone advise whereabouts in Form 11 one is supposed to claim this? I can only find details on the Revenue site about putting it under Other PAYE Expenses for MyAccount, but nothing about how to claim it if you have income other than your main PAYE salary and thus fall under the Income Tax set-up instead. My best guess is under "Allowable Deductions Incurred in Employment" > "Expenses, other than Flat Rate Expenses, paid by the claimant wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment or office." Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## faketales

Purple said:


> The issue for the employer is productivity; will their organisation will be as productive with everyone working from home and if it drops can they restructure/invest/train to get it back to where it was. While rent and rates etc are high they probably don't outweigh a well structured business model.
> I completely agree that it's not sustainable for a couple in a one-bed apartment and if small children are in the mix it's a disaster.



I agree fully. However I don't think the employee will offer WFH if they believe there will be a loss of productivity. Neither will they permit a person working from home to be 10% less productive. In my organisation management believe productivity is the same as pre covid with us all wfh however staff are flagging issues that to maintain stability it has required extra effort. We are also flagging issues about cross team contact etc which will lead to less measurable but long term issues for the business and staff.


----------



## ClubMan

The Irish Times: Bought a desk or a chair? Revenue rules out tax relief for home workers.








						Bought a desk or a chair? Revenue rules out tax relief for home workers
					

Tax authority says laptops, desks and chairs not eligible for relief




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## joe sod

I heard a first year university student on the radio talking about the difficulties and shortcomings of getting lectures remotely and not being on sight, they absolutely hate it. Of course the big issue is missing out on the college social scene but also the standard of their education has dropped. Since the WFH directive began univerities have noticed that first years from last year are at a much lower level than previous years especially in intensive courses like engineering and the sciences. An awful lot of learning comes from your peers not just from lectures and that is not there now.


----------



## messyleo

ClubMan said:


> The Irish Times: Bought a desk or a chair? Revenue rules out tax relief for home workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bought a desk or a chair? Revenue rules out tax relief for home workers
> 
> 
> Tax authority says laptops, desks and chairs not eligible for relief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.irishtimes.com




Thanks Clubman - that's very disappointing - I spent €250 on an office chair and €100 on a printer! There should be a partial allowance at least.


----------



## joe sod

Heard something on newstalk this morning about the big US multinationals saying they are suffering somewhat from the WFH directive. According to them teamwork is suffering because workers cannot help their colleagues adequately , also innovation has dropped off a cliff because everyone is at home. It is interesting that it is the big US tech and pharma that are actually voicing these concerns, but when you think about it it makes sense because these companies are all about innovation and anything that hampers that is detrimental. They are also looking for guidance from the government on when business travel can resume as that is also very important to them. 
So from that it is obvious that  WFH kept companies in a holding pattern merely maintaining services as they had been in february 2020 but no real innovation has happened except in the areas of directly dealing with corona.


----------



## MugsGame

I can't speak for Pharma (particularly where they may have physical plant) but this doesn't make any sense for US tech. I wonder what the primary source is.


----------



## joe sod

MugsGame said:


> I can't speak for Pharma (particularly where they may have physical plant) but this doesn't make any sense for US tech. I wonder what the primary source is.


well if you are a technology company innovation is their bread and butter, innovation happens when you have teams of people working together and also people need to travel from one team to another in different countries. Innovation does not happen when everyone is sitting at home in isolation at a screen. There is not a neat compartmentalization of work into screen based and physical even more so in technology.
Maybe for people who are merely consumers of technology WFH is not such a big issue.


----------



## MugsGame

I work in a tech company on project teams spread across three continents. I don't identify with these issues. Which is why I'm interested in Newstalk's primary source for this reporting.

Working from home does not necessitate isolation. Synchronous and asynchronous collaboration can still happen. Granted some opportunities for face to face collaboration and travel are lost, but there are ways of adapting and there are some advantages as well as disadvantages. It's different, not better or worse.

Some very successful technology companies and technology projects only have remote workers. 

And I'd also argue that innovation often does start with just one individual working alone.


----------



## Hooverfish

I'm curious as to why are you so upset about the move to wfh, Joe Sod? A lot of unsubstantiated claims seem to have been made by you, on reading through this thread. The government had an expert group on teleworking back in 2000 with input from IBEC and ICTU which worked to remove any structural issues preventing wfh eg planning permission and which stressed both employer and employee benefits. 

Even back then, there were good research projects and case studies going back to the 70s in a range of countries, showing an average 10% increase in productivity when wfh. If you want more recent control group studies, try this one: https://www.inc.com/scott-mautz/a-2...-productivity-boost-of-working-from-home.html

So I'm just wondering, what it is that is bothering you? If you don't like it for yourself, fair enough - make a case to your employer as to why you should be an exception. But why are you so active trying to change other people's views yet not providing evidence for your own view? Is it the sector that you work in, or a personal experience, or a family member or friends? It would be interesting to know the background for your views.

Going back to the original query, it has always been possible to get more than 10% of the wfh expenses taken account of but only where vouched. I did this from 1995-2005 (form 11) then from 2016-2018 (PAYE).


----------



## Jim2007

joe sod said:


> well if you are a technology company innovation is their bread and butter, innovation happens when you have teams of people working together and also people need to travel from one team to another in different countries. Innovation does not happen when everyone is sitting at home in isolation at a screen. There is not a neat compartmentalization of work into screen based and physical even more so in technology.
> Maybe for people who are merely consumers of technology WFH is not such a big issue.



This is just complete twaddle. If you had experience you'd know that technology companies have been working remotely for years.  In 1998 I worked on an AI system used to generate credit ratings for one of the well known factoring companies, the team was distributed across three continents.  In 2003 I was one of the core team that worked on systems for the NASDAQ, the team consisted of two people in Norway, one in Switzerland, one in Dublin, a couple on a farm out in Idaho and three people in New York.  And the development company did not even have a physical head office.

And as outsourcing has really taken off it is now common place to have members working for all kinds of home location.  The current team I lead has three people located in the Ukraine, one in Italy and 4 in India.

As far as I can see your post are long on opinion and very short on facts.


----------



## odyssey06

Given the choice between brain-storming and team planning sessions, virtual versus in person, I would have strong preference, and expect same for my colleagues that they be in the office. Such sessions virtual are slower, less interactive and need more preliminary work.
Even pre-covid for staff who primarily WFH, they would have made a point to be in the office for those sessions.
It makes a big difference whether we're talking about an 80/20 WFH split and a 100% WFH approach.
I work in IT and have been working remotely for 6 months .


----------



## joe sod

Hooverfish said:


> So I'm just wondering, what it is that is bothering you? If you don't like it for yourself, fair enough - make a case to your employer as to why you should be an exception. But why are you so active trying to change other people's views yet not providing evidence for your own view? Is it the sector that you work in, or a personal experience, or a family member or friends? It would be interesting to know the background for your views.


Because I dont think it is the nirvana that alot of people think it is, it doesn't affect me personally either I am just expressing an opinion and giving the other side of the argument. I am highlighting the disadvantages to WFH but more specifically the enforced working from home, I know it is somewhat necessary now with the corona virus. However I think there is a danger in extrapolating forward this enforced WFH into the future and not giving proper consideration to the  disadvantages. The disadvantages and costs are by and large being borne by the businesses themselves and not by workers therefore they are not adequately considering the problems down the road. 
Yes big Tech and Pharma can probably absorb these costs but irish indigenous businesses with no great depth in technology can not and could be gone in the next year or so , not just the obvious hospitality sector either. It might be great to be WFH now but if the company cannot absorb the costs and you are not particularly highly skilled you could be out of a job in the next few years.
PS it was discussed on Newstalk show at 10pm "Down to Business" with Bobby Kerr


----------



## Hooverfish

joe sod said:


> PS it was discussed on Newstalk show at 10pm "Down to Business" with Bobby Kerr



Bobby Kerr makes some of his money from doing consultancy to improve high street retail businesses. Therefore he is not exactly "neutral" on the subject of working from home. 

A lot of small businesses already do work remotely precisely because it's flexible and cheap. If an indigenous business is not IT literate, and therefore in difficulty with wfh, at this stage it's that lack of IT "nous" that is their problem, and what is going to cause them to go bust, and not working from home. 

Can you provide any actual examples, with costs, where a business is finding it more expensive to provide working from home options for employees? Can you provide any examples of enforced wfh that has been disadvantageous to an employee? In most cases there will be a contract of employment which is most unlikely to state wfh is compulsory unless the employee was recruited on that basis, and agreed to it on recruitment. Therefore the employee is likely to have rights to refuse wfh once lockdown is lifted. 

I really think you are protesting too much without any evidence.


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> Because I dont think it is the nirvana that alot of people think it is, it doesn't affect me personally either I am just expressing an opinion and giving the other side of the argument. I am highlighting the disadvantages to WFH but more specifically the enforced working from home, I know it is somewhat necessary now with the corona virus. However I think there is a danger in extrapolating forward this enforced WFH into the future and not giving proper consideration to the disadvantages. The disadvantages and costs are by and large being borne by the businesses themselves and not by workers therefore they are not adequately considering the problems down the road.



My sense is that collaboration and innovation does suffer in a WFH environment, but you need to consider that pre and likely post COVID, for most people, WFH is not 100% of the time. I suspect that many of the companies pushing greater levels of WFH (the company I work for included), will operate hybrid models. WFH was expanding to facilitate staff who wanted to WFH, if you force people to who don't want to, to WFH, they'll just go elsewhere.  

Few if any people spend all day everyday brainstorming or in group design sessions. Those tend to be focused short-lived intensive efforts and afterwards everyone goes away to work on their own or in small pods. With planning, 1 day in a week or two in the office 

The company where I I work were supporting increasing levels of WFH prior to this, driven by staff demand and the challenges of hiring suitably qualified staff to offices in high-demand locations. There were concerns about a drop in innovation though, so they carried out a few studies. They installed sensors on floors in a few buildings that trace the movement and interaction of people over the day, so they had data on the usage of collaboration spaces and conference rooms. 

The data suggested large scale WFH could work so they started to allow more to do it. They did recognise the challenges it brings though, so they are also redesigning many of the work practices to better support it. Functions and responsibilities are being split out into smaller more autonomous teams with coordinated planning at preset intervals to surface interdependencies and ensure everyone is moving in the right direction. It's a different way of working, it needs different structures to support that.


----------



## Purple

WRH will, hopefully, have a very positive impact on the rural/urban divide.


----------



## Leo

Purple said:


> WRH will, hopefully, have a very positive impact on the rural/urban divide.



Very good point, it might be the saviour of some rural Irish communities. Over the last couple of years quite a few where I work have moved out of Dublin to various parts of the country they couldn't have considered if they were not allowed WFH most of the time.


----------



## Thirsty

> saviour of some rural Irish communities


Only if you can get broadband!


----------



## Purple

Thirsty said:


> Only if you can get broadband!


Nearly every town and village can. It's not reasonable to expect to buy a 3000 sq.ft. house in the middle of nowhere for the same price as a one bedroom apartment in Dublin and expect the same access to services as that one bedroom apartment. The trade-off is space, privacy and comfort against access to shops, hospitals, broadband etc. That said we certainly need to ensure that every town and village, and city suburb, has good broadband access.


----------



## ArthurMcB

You'd be surprised how easily accessible are shops, hospitals and broadband outside of dublin.


----------



## Leo

ArthurMcB said:


> You'd be surprised how easily accessible are shops, hospitals and broadband outside of dublin.



Broadband fine, I'd still much rather a Dublin hospital though!!


----------



## Leo

Thirsty said:


> Only if you can get broadband!



Some of my country relatives ~10k from the closest town get ~6 times the bandwidth I do in D12


----------



## Purple

ArthurMcB said:


> You'd be surprised how easily accessible are shops, hospitals and broadband outside of dublin.


 I know well how easy it is unless you choose to live in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## Purple

Leo said:


> Broadband fine, I'd still much rather a Dublin hospital though!!


Yep, if I was knocked down in Naas I'd ask the Ambulance to bring me to Tallaght.


----------



## Blackrock1

if both spouses wfh can both make the same claim or is one claim per house hold?


----------



## DublinHead54

Do you still need your employer to 'sponsor' this claim or can it be made directly to revenue?


----------



## Peanuts20

I'm working on a project from home at the minute for an Irish client. Some of my team are Irish based, some overseas. Our team works well together remotely and I've become quite friendly with people I know I'll never meet. The client's team also work well together. The challenge is both of us working together effectively

Last year, we'd have gone to their offices for a few days or them to ours, got in a big room with a whiteboard and trashed everything out. Fly a few people in if needed as well. Trying to do that via conference calls, when people are being distracted by dogs, couriers and who knows what and are often working their inbox instead of focussing on the discussion is far more difficult. You ask someone a question on the call and you find they've wandered off to make a cuppa but not said anything. It's difficult to share complex flow diagrams on screen when you could print them out, stick them on a wall and walk them through. It gets a bit frustrating after a while. Also, in terms of client management, you miss the body languague.


----------



## joe sod

Looks like some employees working WFH but not now in Ireland are under instruction to be back in Ireland by end of year so as not to cause problems with tax residency but more importantly with corporation tax and intellectual property. If they are key technology workers and develop some new piece of technology then this could legitimately be considered the property of the home country and not "irish intellectual property". This a warning from Mazars reported on newstalk business this morning. So we could have an influx of technology workers back into the country in December, not even Tony Holohan will stop that even if he still shames irish people into not returning. Maybe thats the real reason why we never closed down air travel and hastily started very expensive private covid testing at the airport to facilitate this influx.


----------



## Leo

joe sod said:


> So we could have an influx of technology workers back into the country in December,



This isn't anything new. Most companies in this situation have made the requirements clear months ago. The big accountancy firms warned about this back in the summer.



joe sod said:


> not even Tony Holohan will stop that even if he still shames irish people into not returning. Maybe thats the real reason why we never closed down air travel and hastily started very expensive private covid testing at the airport to facilitate this influx.



Or perhaps it was just better than the Australian model of abandoning tens of thousands of citizens abroad with no way of returning home. 

The WHO did not recommend a full shut down of air travel, and studies have backed up that such restrictions had little effect in the few countries that did adopt severe restrictions. Our own stats show that only 1.4% of cases are linked to international travel.


----------



## Lisboa

Dublinbay12 said:


> Do you still need your employer to 'sponsor' this claim or can it be made directly to revenue?



Either are still applicable as far as I know. Your employer can pay you up to €3.20 per day, or if your employer doesn't make this payment, you can claim relief yourself. If you claim the relief yourself, you can't claim the €3.20 per day, you need to do your own self-assessment.

For electricity and heating: it's bill amount multiply by days WFH, divided by 365, multiply by 0.1 (10%).

For broadband: it's bill amount multiply by days WFH, divided by 365, multiply by 0.3 (30%).


----------



## Lisboa

Blackrock1 said:


> if both spouses wfh can both make the same claim or is one claim per house hold?



Each spouse / housemates claim individually, but can only claim for their own portion depending on how the bills are split. So if your broadband for your household for the year is say €800, you can't both claim you each paid €800, so spouses would probably find it easier just to claim on €400 each.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Can I ask this €3.20 is this only for Monday to Friday? My wife is salaried and being honest very well paid but she'd work on something everyday thus is the nature of her work....


----------



## odyssey06

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Can I ask this €3.20 is this only for Monday to Friday? My wife is salaried and being honest very well paid but she'd work on something everyday thus is the nature of her work....



Unless the company are paying the 3.20 it wouldnt be that amount.
See the calc earlier on thread for 10 percent electricity and 30 percent broadband by actual days wfh.
It doesnt apply to ppl doing extra work in evenings only if you were fully wfh for the day.


----------



## torblednam

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Can I ask this €3.20 is this only for Monday to Friday? My wife is salaried and being honest very well paid but she'd work on something everyday thus is the nature of her work....



The 3.20 is paid by the employer, so it's at their discretion, but Organisation of Working Time Act etc and pure common sense would argue against more than 5 or 6 x 3.20 per week. At the end of the day, if an employer pays whatever amount of 3.20's to an employee who is on a level of pay which means wage substitution is not an issue, Revenue are unlikely to split hairs over it.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney

Thanks lads


----------

