Did they resent 9-5 workers as well. I dunno does a pilot resent the office hours of an accountant. Maybe a nightclub door man wants to work from home.
Makes no sense as an argument against remote working. None.
Think manufacturing operations…phrma med device etc…unless the robots have taken over, then yes these essential shift workers are required and I’ve heard some resentment being expressed by these workers in relation to the WFH brigade
Sounds like people with a chip on their shoulder. That's got nothing to do with WFH.They didn't make better choices, because nobody working in an office ever foresaw the WFH phenomenon, it was enforced by the covid lockdowns and has only remained since employees prefer it and because of labour shortages. Only in the IT skilled area was WFH seen as feasible before covid.
There is actually a bit of snobbery associated aswell because some people mistakenly believe that they are high skilled employees simply because they work in an office. That's completely false, the multinationals and essential industries could not function without high skilled essential workers being on the job every day. Many of these people are much more valuable to a company than a clerical administrator. It's also more likely that those administrative jobs can be replaced by AI or completely outsourced.
You are wrong it is not a chip on shoulder thing, that's just a way to dismiss my argument. If you make one role completely WFH in an organisation and another role completely work on site, its obviously going to cause problems and is causing problems. It's distorting the whole jobs market because it is making one type of job overly attractive relative to others. Therefore the "I'm alright Jack " philosophy is not good enough, employers have to think about the whole organisation.Sounds like people with a chip on their shoulder. That's got nothing to do with WFH.
You are wrong it is not a chip on shoulder thing, that's just a way to dismiss my argument. If you make one role completely WFH in an organisation and another role completely work on site, its obviously going to cause problems and is causing problems. It's distorting the whole jobs market because it is making one type of job overly attractive relative to others. Therefore the "I'm alright Jack " philosophy is not good enough, employers have to think about the whole organisation.
Work in tech, we were badged as essential workers during lockdown and we rostered the team in such a way that we all worked from home most of the time but for various reasons, we all (including management) came on site as well, including anti-social hours. Since lockdown, our policy is now that WFH is the initial approach for all roles but if you sign up for or are hired for a role that requires you to come onto a site, meet a client etc, then you do so because that is your role and your job description.
I see people on here referring to cushy numbers around working from home and there is an assumption that it is a bit of a doss. It's not. I work more hours now then when I was in the office but I am spending 15 hrs a week less in the car so it is a fair trade off if I give some of that time up.
Real key to working from home is to have a clear policy for all staff and management need to change their tune. We had to move from a more traditional leadership and management model to an outcomes based model and it makes no difference to me now if someone wants to work 9-5 or 7-3 as long as the client is happy and the job is done. If you don't change your management ethos, WFH will fail for a company. If you are ineffective in an office, it is actually easier to hide in plain sight then to do so remotely. For us, we axed around 15% of people when we moved to WFH as it became very apparent very quickly that they were not adding value. And yes, I accept that was a failing of our old management style.
WFH is not a panacea, it creates it's own issues and TBH, a hybrid model is probably best but if leadership do it right and lead by example, it works and works really well.
That's typical public sector mentality, I am not going to do an iota of extra work even though I have got all this extra time, I am not going to give 1 minute extra to my employer even though they have given me this great benefit. This is now mine and the employer can get stuffed and all the people I support can get stuffedIt's not a fair trade off. What you're doing is reducing your effective hourly rate.
Working hours have nothing to do with how long your commute is..
Respectfully disagree. Why give that extra time to your employer over your family, health, hobby or side business? Public sector contracts are not designed to incentivise working extra hours. But even in the private sector, stop giving your time for free is common advice to struggling small businessmen/women.That's typical public sector mentality, I am not going to do an iota of extra work even though I have got all this extra time, I am not going to give 1 minute extra to my employer even though they have given me this great benefit. This is now mine and the employer can get stuffed and all the people I support can get stuffed
Harsh and cold reality of life is that you reach a certain level and clocking on and off 9-5 just doesn't work like that and I am at that level. Were I to take the 9-5 approach, I'd be exited. It actually suits me anyway and one of the big advantages of working from home is that if I want to work 12 hrs one day because I need to take 4 hours off the next for a kids match and the client is happy and everything is covered, I can do that and WFH makes it so much easier to do so. It has transformed my work life balance."...work more hours now then when I was in the office but I am spending 15 hrs a week less in the car so it is a fair trade off if I give some of that time up...."
It's not a fair trade off. What you're doing is reducing your effective hourly rate.
Working hours have nothing to do with how long your commute is..
The rest of it about metrics, outcomes and communication office vs I 100% agree with..
That's typical public sector mentality, I am not going to do an iota of extra work even though I have got all this extra time, I am not going to give 1 minute extra to my employer even though they have given me this great benefit. This is now mine and the employer can get stuffed and all the people I support can get stuffed
Harsh and cold reality of life is that you reach a certain level and clocking on and off 9-5 just doesn't work like that and I am at that level. Were I to take the 9-5 approach, I'd be exited. It actually suits me anyway and one of the big advantages of working from home is that if I want to work 12 hrs one day because I need to take 4 hours off the next for a kids match and the client is happy and everything is covered, I can do that and WFH makes it so much easier to do so. It has transformed my work life balance.
Maybe if I spent less time on here though????..............
There is a reason the Googles of this world have gyms, free food, shops etc on their sites and it's to reduce the reasons anyone has to go home in the eveningI think it's more common people do a lot of extra hours and get a tiny fraction of it back in recompense.
It's got nothing to do with remote working.
Also the reason why the Googles and the other highly innovative companies don't like WFH, they prefer to have people on site all collaborating effectively with each other. Even though it is these companies technology that has facilitated others WFH. Without the Googles and the Microsofts there would be very little WFHThere is a reason the Googles of this world have gyms, free food, shops etc on their sites and it's to reduce the reasons anyone has to go home in the evening
Anecdotally there is now an issue with multinationals losing highly skilled workers to the public and semi state sector, the main draw is now WFH which nearly everyone seems to be on there.
Harsh and cold reality of life is that you reach a certain level and clocking on and off 9-5 just doesn't work like that and I am at that level. Were I to take the 9-5 approach, I'd be exited.
Anecdotally there is now an issue with multinationals losing highly skilled workers to the public and semi state sector, the main draw is now WFH which nearly everyone seems to be on there.
Also the reason why the Googles and the other highly innovative companies don't like WFH, they prefer to have people on site all collaborating effectively with each other. Even though it is these companies technology that has facilitated others WFH. Without the Googles and the Microsofts there would be very little WFH
That's about as insightful as saying without homes there'd be very little WFH!Without the Googles and the Microsofts there would be very little WFH
The market will eventually require that those who work on site will get paid more than those who work from home.You are wrong it is not a chip on shoulder thing, that's just a way to dismiss my argument. If you make one role completely WFH in an organisation and another role completely work on site, its obviously going to cause problems and is causing problems. It's distorting the whole jobs market because it is making one type of job overly attractive relative to others. Therefore the "I'm alright Jack " philosophy is not good enough, employers have to think about the whole organisation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?