Society/Culture Working from home vs forced back to the office

[bourbons]

If you have an employee who is WFH and takes her kids to the pool on a regular basis and then makes the decision to do work instead of making sure her toddler doesn't drown then you have a very irresponsible person on your hands and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with her. If she is the type of person who makes the decision to receive money and then deliberately decides to not do the work that she is paid to do and hide it from her employer, then that is stealing and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with her.

Hmmm, I think your second example is very reasonable but not so much the first.

ie. if she is not doing the work she is paid to do then yeah of course thats not on, again whether at home or in the office.

But if she is getting all her work done to the required standard while juggling things and doing stuff you personally find irresponsible in her personal/family life thats neither here nor there for mine, none of your business really as long as the work is getting done.

(FWIW I'd agree that example of working while her toddler is in the pool is pretty whack, not even sure how she'd get away with something like that - I was pulled up once by a lifeguard at a public pool for looking at my phone will mine was in and he's 7 ).

 

[Saab NLAW]

Yeah think I've said before here, you're going to get your percentage of deadshits in every company. Granted it will be easier to slack off at home but they'll find ways to do it in the office too.

IMO it comes back to their workload and KPIs, if they're ticking everything off and their work is up to standard I don't think it really matters where they're doing it, office or home.

Absolutely correct.

The only thing I'll add to that is not all jobs are WFH compatible.

 

[bourbons]

Absolutely correct.

The only thing I'll add to that is not all jobs are WFH compatible.

Yeah, very lucky I'm in an industry where its possible I know that. Like I said, no idea how working parents without that option manage

 

[Saab NLAW]

But if she is getting all her work done to the required standard while juggling things and doing stuff you personally find irresponsible in her personal/family life thats neither here nor there for mine, none of your business really as long as the work is getting done.

I had one of my staff work from home for a bit, in Bali . They requested it due to some personal matters, we sat down, worked out a plan and a way for it to work. All good. As a business owner i would do anything for my good staff because I don't want them to leave.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Yeah, very lucky I'm in an industry where its possible I know that. Like I said, no idea how working parents without that option manage

We went through it before being a business owner, it was really hard and we made a lot of sacrifices to make sure our kids were ok.

I like how our society is becoming more flexible with working arrangements.

 

[peetoo]

If you have an employee who is WFH and takes her kids to the pool on a regular basis and then makes the decision to do work instead of making sure her toddler doesn't drown then you have a very irresponsible person on your hands and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with her. If she is the type of person who makes the decision to receive money and then deliberately decides to not do the work that she is paid to do and hide it from her employer, then that is stealing and I wouldn't want to have anything to do with her.

Let her go and work for a not for profit or the government where those types of leaches belong.

Culture is such a valuable thing for a business, a good business will encourage flexible arrangements and help their staff manage life stuff. A toxic employee whose deliberate actions result in the other staff and to constantly pick of the slack for the leach will destroy the hard worked culture. These types of leaches are very easy to identify

Just checking, so you actually approve of govt and nfp staff taking it easy?

 

[faible]

Nice post but i have a question.

WFH as you say allows a parent to save money on childcare costs, which are absolutely crazy high, glad we're past that.

How can someone who is working from home and taking care of their pre-school age kids possible be able to work full time? It's impossible, and grossly unfair to the little kids. Where is their daily social interaction if they're stuck in front of a tv all day or on tech while their parents are busy with work?

The reality is that parents who WFH and take care of their kids don't really do much work.

Depends on the role someone does.

If it's outcome oriented but not really time specific e.g. it doesn't actually matter if they work 9-5 or 7-3 or 12 - 8 or <whenever> then so long as they produce the outcome and communicate as needed then I don't really care what someone does.

If it's something more time sensitive where they need to be contactable 9-5 for customers and/or coworkers then yes, it's not really suitable.

It's a bit like employing a sales person and setting them a target. If they worked for 3 months and hit that target, in theory they could take the next 9 months barely working beyond perhaps some account management and being on-call, and they'd still have fulfilled all the requirements of their role.

Not all roles are suitable; if you work in a warehouse driving a forklift then WFH obviously isn't for you, but for office-based staff IMO you're likely to get a much happier (and cheaper) staff member by accomodating them. It's not that hard to work out if someone is taking the piss in smaller organisations, maybe bloated big corporates find it a challenge.

 

[the_interloper]

Depends on the role someone does.

If it's outcome oriented but not really time specific e.g. it doesn't actually matter if they work 9-5 or 7-3 or 12 - 8 or <whenever> then so long as they produce the outcome and communicate as needed then I don't really care what someone does.

If it's something more time sensitive where they need to be contactable 9-5 for customers and/or coworkers then yes, it's not really suitable.

It's a bit like employing a sales person and setting them a target. If they worked for 3 months and hit that target, in theory they could take the next 9 months barely working beyond perhaps some account management and being on-call, and they'd still have fulfilled all the requirements of their role.

Not all roles are suitable; if you work in a warehouse driving a forklift then WFH obviously isn't for you, but for office-based staff IMO you're likely to get a much happier (and cheaper) staff member by accomodating them. It's not that hard to work out if someone is taking the piss in smaller organisations, maybe bloated big corporates find it a challenge.

That's it, and that's one of the great things about being in sales, you hit your number and no one can say shit. Well not strictly true, I well exceeded my target one quarter and got the arse the next.

But your point is actually correct, I mean you don't actually go on holiday but if you're hitting targets your boss usually leaves you alone and puts the focus on the under performers. And if everyone is making their number it's a great time!

 

[Saab NLAW]

Just checking, so you actually approve of govt and nfp staff taking it easy?

I definitely did not say that lol but it's where a lot of parasites and leaches end up because they know it's almost impossible to get fired.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Depends on the role someone does.

If it's outcome oriented but not really time specific e.g. it doesn't actually matter if they work 9-5 or 7-3 or 12 - 8 or <whenever> then so long as they produce the outcome and communicate as needed then I don't really care what someone does.

If it's something more time sensitive where they need to be contactable 9-5 for customers and/or coworkers then yes, it's not really suitable.

It's a bit like employing a sales person and setting them a target. If they worked for 3 months and hit that target, in theory they could take the next 9 months barely working beyond perhaps some account management and being on-call, and they'd still have fulfilled all the requirements of their role.

Not all roles are suitable; if you work in a warehouse driving a forklift then WFH obviously isn't for you, but for office-based staff IMO you're likely to get a much happier (and cheaper) staff member by accomodating them. It's not that hard to work out if someone is taking the piss in smaller organisations, maybe bloated big corporates find it a challenge.

That doesn't make sense though, let's take your above example of a salesperson hitting their target in the first 3 months of the year. If they did that then they would have had to work extremely hard in those 3 months. If that was the case, then who the hell was taking care of their kids during that time? Someone like that who makes a conscious decision to neglect their pre-school child deserves jail time.

 

[faible]

That doesn't make sense though, let's take your above example of a salesperson hitting their target in the first 3 months of the year. If they did that then they would have had to work extremely hard in those 3 months. If that was the case, then who the hell was taking care of their kids during that time? Someone like that who makes a conscious decision to neglect their pre-school child deserves jail time.

I see you seem to struggle with reading what's written.

 

[Saab NLAW]

I see you seem to struggle with reading what's written.

You replied to my post about WFH to reduce childcare costs, perhaps it's you who is struggling

 

[faible]

You replied to my post about WFH to reduce childcare costs, perhaps it's you who is struggling

A starting point to my comment, not the entirety of it.

 

[Saab NLAW]

A starting point to my comment, not the entirety of it.

lol what?

My post was discussing people wanting to WFH to they can save money and not pay childcare, you reply directly to that post with some random points such as hitting their target after 3 months and doing nothing for the rest of the year. and then you take offense with my clearly confused reply

Hilarious

 

[the_interloper]

That doesn't make sense though, let's take your above example of a salesperson hitting their target in the first 3 months of the year. If they did that then they would have had to work extremely hard in those 3 months. If that was the case, then who the hell was taking care of their kids during that time? Someone like that who makes a conscious decision to neglect their pre-school child deserves jail time.

That is one interesting take

 

[faible]

lol what?

My post was discussing people wanting to WFH to they can save money and not pay childcare, you reply directly to that post with some random points such as hitting their target after 3 months and doing nothing for the rest of the year. and then you take offense with my clearly confused reply

Hilarious

Sometimes, in the course of a discussion, people move on from commenting on your post to other things.

This can occur within the same post so as to not clutter up a thread.

 

[bourbons]

You replied to my post about WFH to reduce childcare costs, perhaps it's you who is struggling

I guess the potential savings in this hypothetical could be that they've paid for childcare during those 3 months and got everything done so they don't have to pay for childcare over the whole 12 months. Or other arrangements, some family member able to provide care during those 3 months. Too many moving parts to just declare that they're neglecting their kids.

Again I think it comes back to if the work is being done to the required standard and other required aspects of the employment are being fulfilled (eg. communication/contactability/availability) then its really no business of the employer what personal circumstances are facilitating that.

 

[burge13]

Mystified this bloke runs a business with the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader tbh

 

[Saab NLAW]

I guess the potential savings in this hypothetical could be that they've paid for childcare during those 3 months and got everything done so they don't have to pay for childcare over the whole 12 months. Or other arrangements, some family member able to provide care during those 3 months. Too many moving parts to just declare that they're neglecting their kids.

Again I think it comes back to if the work is being done to the required standard and other required aspects of the employment are being fulfilled (eg. communication/contactability/availability) then its really no business of the employer what personal circumstances are facilitating that.

It's pretty simple, if you want to WFH that's great, go find an employer to help that

 

[Saab NLAW]

Sometimes, in the course of a discussion, people move on from commenting on your post to other things.

This can occur within the same post so as to not clutter up a thread.

Your smart arse follow up reply is what caused the problem, all you had to do was explain that your reply had nothing to do with my post. Not everyone has the ability to read minds

 

[faible]

Your smart arse follow up reply is what caused the problem, all you had to do was explain that your reply had nothing to do with my post. Not everyone has the ability to read minds

Part of my reply did.

Part did not.

Other posters seemed to manage the interpretation without instructions.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Part of my reply did.

Part did not.

Other posters seemed to manage the interpretation without instructions.

Your smart arse reply is the issue, any decent person wouldn't have done that. It shows a lot about your character and who you are.

 

[Gethelred]

It's really difficult. I'm a business owner and I like the hybrid system but we've been burnt by the WFH demands. We had 1 guy who insisted on WFH but then we very quickly discovered he was in fact studying full time to become a priest while we were paying him to do a job he wasn't doing. We had another one who was taking her pre-school aged kids to the pool several times a week while she was meant to be working. Not sure how you can work and also make sure your toddler doesn't drown in a pool.

The question I've got for you in those situations is, was the required work completed to the desired - and explicitly stated - standards?

 

[faible]

Your smart arse reply is the issue, any decent person wouldn't have done that. It shows a lot about your character and who you are.

I mean yes I'm a smart arse, this isn't new, but the snarky replies started with you my friend.

 

[swingdog]

I love the idea that people in the NFP sector are taking it easy.

Laughable.