JoeRoberts
Registered User
- Messages
- 733
There is a strong wind of change among international companies on the thinking behind this. We need to ditch the legislation now to remove what will become a significant burden against investment.
If I run a company that opposes it I won't invest in Ireland SimpleThe legislation is incredibly weak. All it provides is that you can ask and companies can have a whole host of reasons why they can turn it down.
How is it a significant burden against investment?
Trump's new rule for federal workers will continue the trend into the private sector. , Amazon , Apple. ex Asda boss came out this week about it. Musk is no fan of it. We need to get back to basics in this country in so many ways and this is one of them.Any source re intl companies having storng views on Irish WFH legislation? or this just your opinion?
There should be no obligation on a company to explain why they refuse it. The very existence of the legislation sends a bad message.What particular elements of the legislation are of concern for you?
For the record I work for a large US multinational who remain committed to maintaining a hybrid environment.
A company's decision to invest in ireland will be based on more important factors than this (weak/toothless) legislation.If I run a company that opposes it I won't invest in Ireland Simple
As do IWhat particular elements of the legislation are of concern for you?
For the record I work for a large US multinational who remain committed to maintaining a hybrid environment.
I consider it a meaningless sop to the lefties/state employees and agree that it is, thankfully, incredibly weak legislation. If offering a hybrid/work from home option attracts the talent that companies need then they will offer it. If you are sufficiently talented then you'll be able to avail of that option. If not you won't. Grand; leave it as it is.The legislation is incredibly weak.
That's why I asked the question. Joe clearly believes there is something of significant concern in the legislation, I want to know what specifically.A company's decision to invest in ireland will be based on more important factors than this (weak/toothless) legislation.
Is that it? A company shouldn't have to have a mature adult conversation with a member of staff? It's a pretty weak management who would be afraid of such a conversation.There should be no obligation on a company to explain why they refuse it. The very existence of the legislation sends a bad message.
Great so no need to have legislation . Let a company make a totally voluntary call on it.I work for a US multinational who are strongly in favour of hybrid working as we've saved a fortune in real estate costs. Furthermore, 90% of my team work overseas so it makes no difference if I am in an office or not. I rarely meet them F2F. For clarity on the legislation
- You have a legal right to ask to work from home
- Employers must respond to the request within 4 weeks of it being made
- You do not have a legal right to actually work from home
If anything, the legislation actually makes it more difficult for an employee to work from home. For example, the employee has to confirm
Or, to put it another way, you can't ask if you can work from home with a laptop from the kitchen table. That's a straight no if an employer is doing things right.
- the workstation is suitably equipped and configured to enable the employee to perform their role and duties effectively to the required standard
- the distance of the proposed remote workplace to the employer’s on-site place of work is agreeable to the employer
- a suitable workstation that provides adequate privacy;
- a commitment to ensuring that company data and intellectual property is secure and protected in accordance with employer policies;
- an agreement to complying with employee obligations, and to cooperating with employer obligations in ensuring compliance with the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005
- an agreement to a risk assessment and, if approved, to make no subsequent substantive changes to the workstation without authorisation
- an agreement to demonstrate compliance with, but not limited to, data protection, data security, confidentiality, IT, social media, email, protection of intellectual property company policies and measures;
- the availability of relevant equipment and technology at the proposed location and agreement to ensuring that equipment is used appropriately;
- confirmation of adequate and secure internet connection to perform the role which may need to be assessed by the company’s IT department
The leigislation won't make a blind bit of a difference to 99% of multinationals as it is worded in such a way that the employer doesn't have to accept the request if it doesn't meet business needs
I dont fully agree with this.Is that it? A company shouldn't have to have a mature adult conversation with a member of staff? It's a pretty weak management who would be afraid of such a conversation.
A lot of the noise regarding moving away fully from allowing remote work comes down to one of two factors, a company looking for a cheap way of cutting headcount or weak or incompetent management. A lot of the tech sector are in the first boat after massive hiring during the pandemic. Effective management doesn't fear a work environment that allows for some element of WFH, depending on the nature of the business of course. Incompetent managers are usually the most opposed as they are unable to micromanage and fear being caught out if the subject matter expertise they rely on as a crutch isn't right in front of them when they need them.
There are also strong societal arguments against it, it creates a further divide between manual and office workers . How does a brick layer feel driving home from work listening to the Rte presenters extolling the new way of working ?I dont fully agree with this.
The real reason for the move towards going back full time to the office is the perception, whether right or wrong, that work is done more efficiently in the office and there is better collaboration.
As someone that wfh regularly, i believe this to be true.
However, balanced against this is the need for general flexibility and a case by case approach; as some do work very effectively from home. Whilst other do not. There are also other societal arguments for wfh.
Like during Covid when the office based RTE, the office based Newspapers and the office based civil servants and politicians talked about getting back to the office when in fact the vast majority of people don't work in an office.There are also strong societal arguments against it, it creates a further divide between manual and office workers . How does a brick layer feel driving home from work listening to the Rte presenters extolling the new way of working ?
Good management will know this, productivity is measurable and at this stage companies should have all the data they need to establish what works best.The real reason for the move towards going back full time to the office is the perception, whether right or wrong, that work is done more efficiently in the office and there is better collaboration.
What do you work at yourself?it creates a further divide between manual and office workers
Do you think brick layers are just brick layers because they couldn't get an office job? I know a couple and they can't stand the thoughts of working in that kind of environment. I'd imagine a lot of others are happy they can get to their job sites with a little less traffic on the roads.There are also strong societal arguments against it, it creates a further divide between manual and office workers . How does a brick layer feel driving home from work listening to the Rte presenters extolling the new way of working ?