Post COVID, pressure on primary breadwinners

Sporky

Iamnobody said:

I was never paid for travelling to and from the office in my own time 

That point seems to be often missed. Employers don't pay different amounts based on how far you live from the office. 

Danny1969

I've been working from home since 2016. To a certain extent work never stops for me, but then it never really starts either in the normal sense. I have no set times I have to do anything. I don't need to take calls or go on Zoom. If I have a business meeting it will be in the pub, face to face. I can (and often do) sit on the beach in the summer designing stuff and answering the odd email. 
But I never really switch off and will work online to quite late at night sometimes. I don't mind this as I enjoy it. It's a vocation that just happens to pay really well. 

It's hard to describe but it's kind of like there's no distinction between work and home anymore .. it's all kinda rolled into one enjoyable thing. It suits me but I can see some people need firm lines between the 2 

Philly_Q

Sporky said:

Iamnobody said:
I was never paid for travelling to and from the office in my own time 

That point seems to be often missed. Employers don't pay different amounts based on how far you live from the office. 

But some salaries include a "London weighting" (or presumably a "Manchester weighting", or whatever) to allow for living, within commuting distance, in an expensive part of the country.  Apparently some people switched to permanent WFH and moved further out, so it's debatable whether they should still get the London weighting.  Presumably many employers have levelled-up their salary structures now.

Sporky

Philly_Q said:

Apparently some people switched to permanent WFH and moved further out, so it's debatable whether they should still get the London weighting. 

True... I think it'd be daft to try to cut their pay. Maybe edge it out gradually with a percent less pay rise or something. Or don't worry. If they're good at it. 

guitargeek62

Philly_Q said:

Sporky said:

Iamnobody said:
I was never paid for travelling to and from the office in my own time 

That point seems to be often missed. Employers don't pay different amounts based on how far you live from the office. 

But some salaries include a "London weighting" (or presumably a "Manchester weighting", or whatever) to allow for living, within commuting distance, in an expensive part of the country.  Apparently some people switched to permanent WFH and moved further out, so it's debatable whether they should still get the London weighting.  Presumably many employers have levelled-up their salary structures now.

I did, and with management & HR’s blessing at the time. As of last summer they’ve introduced new onsite ‘requirements’ though which I’m politely but firmly declining, not least because my ‘commute’ is now a min. of 3.5hrs each way. 

Much like Sporky, I wouldn’t willingly forgo any percentage of my salary to continue WFH permanently; my role rarely requires me to be in-person for anything, and a lot of my work is done with the US east coast so somerset vs London is something of a moot point imo.

Jetsam1

I had an office day yesterday. Company has relinquished a large part of the building and now we are hot desking with one day a week set aside for each team to prioritise so we can have team days. I live way out in the forest with no neighbours for at least 1km in every direction and i find it really hard to concentrate in a full office and it is stuffy and too hot. It is an hour and a half drive each way too.

Because of car trouble yesterday was not my team's day (though a few were in) but the others were and it was packed. Really noisy even though people were trying to be quiet. I found I only did occasional rapid coffee breaks and missed lunch as everywhere was too busy. So a much worse working environment than my little corner at home.

WFH is easy. Discipline on working hours and turn off the laptop and physically put it away when finished. Been the best thing, as going into the centre of Budapest every day was absolutlely brutal when I look back.

Oh and I got Employee of the Year last year as I had 50% extra productivity over the next closest person. All WFH. Management all the way up trust me to get the work done.

Now, I am a bit burnt out but better burning out in the forest than the office. There are little birds and trees and things. Company is trying to take my workload down to something approaching sane but I have noticed a few mistakes cropping in and I am getting annoyed at emails and feeling tired and sad a lot. Last year was comical in the amount of expensive BS happening but I try to keep catastrophe at home away from work and keep catastrophe at work away from home but that doesn;t really ever work entirely though does it?

sev112

But none of you (except @TTony who’s and independent contractor) all work for companies - you are not just one person doing your job; you all collectively contribute ; you all benefit from the actions and decisions of others.   

Companies are losing money hand over fist paying for offices with very little attendance with AC and heating and lighting and water etc.  You, as you all state, are making money over pre-COVID.

Now you may think “sock it to the man”, but those “men” Will wisen up, put you on short term contracts which are probably put out to the cheapest bidder overseas, close their costly offices and “companies” will be no more.  There will just be co-ordinators offering to jobs the cheapest. 

And we think this is a good thing ?

no now is a time to get it right.  The workers want some of the benefit (not all like everyone is saying they are “taking”), which is not unreasonable, the companies want sensible long term facilities and asset management not being at the whim of where  any individual might like to work, but also many people want sustained employment, valuable communities with employers, jobs for life-ish.

it needs to be win-win, and all I see are “well I can do my job from home form much cheaper”

TTony

sev112 said:

you are not just one person doing your job; you all collectively contribute ; you all benefit from the actions and decisions of others.   

You don't have to be in an office to be able to work collaboratively.  VC facilities/applications improved massively as a result of Covid / lockdown, and many companies are spread across many different locations / countries.  I found that the increased use of Teams (as eg) improved collaboration and interaction across dispersed teams.

But I agree, nothing beats the informal, casual, unplanned human interaction that happens when people are co-located.

sev112 said:

Companies are losing money hand over fist paying for offices with very little attendance with AC and heating and lighting and water etc.  You, as you all state, are making money over pre-COVID.

Many leases will be fixed across multi-years.  The US has started to see a lot of empty office space post-Covid, which will likely create issues for the investment funds who hold many of those commercial buildings as revenue-earning assets.  That's a fairly significant risk, IMHO.  Check where your pension fund is invested.

sev112 said:

 Will wisen up, put you on short term contracts which are probably put out to the cheapest bidder overseas, close their costly offices and “companies” will be no more.  There will just be co-ordinators offering to jobs the cheapest. 

That's already pretty standard practice (in the industries I work in).  "Permanent" employees are effectively on contracts as long as they're notice periods.  And outsourcing/offshoring has been a thing for 20years.  Some companies today are little more than brand shells compared to 20years ago.

sev112 said:

 but also many people want sustained employment, valuable communities with employers, jobs for life-ish.

Jobs-for-life hasn't been a thing since the 60s/70s.  The only way to guarantee employment is to maintain your own skills and employability (or the saleability of those skills).  If you rely on being employed by a company, you'll likely find yourself with a lot of unplanned spare time.

Sporky

sev112 said:

You, as you all state, are making money over pre-COVID.

Mostly because I keep getting the maximum pay rises allowed in the company policy, because I'm recognised as being really good at what I do.

sev112 said:

all I see are “well I can do my job from home form much cheaper”

Just because that's all you see doesn't mean it's all that's been said. Some people are happier, more productive, and more engaged working from home. All of those are good for the employer.

Iamnobody

sev112 said:

But none of you (except @TTony who’s and independent contractor) all work for companies - you are not just one person doing your job; you all collectively contribute ; you all benefit from the actions and decisions of others.   

Companies are losing money hand over fist paying for offices with very little attendance with AC and heating and lighting and water etc.  You, as you all state, are making money over pre-COVID.

Now you may think “sock it to the man”, but those “men” Will wisen up, put you on short term contracts which are probably put out to the cheapest bidder overseas, close their costly offices and “companies” will be no more.  There will just be co-ordinators offering to jobs the cheapest. 

And we think this is a good thing ?

no now is a time to get it right.  The workers want some of the benefit (not all like everyone is saying they are “taking”), which is not unreasonable, the companies want sensible long term facilities and asset management not being at the whim of where  any individual might like to work, but also many people want sustained employment, valuable communities with employers, jobs for life-ish.

it needs to be win-win, and all I see are “well I can do my job from home form much cheaper”

Your concerns are very general. I’ll go right back to my initial post. It’s very much dependant on the industry and type of work. They won’t be flying out a kid from Bangalore to do my site visits and meetings. I’m also employed on a permanent contract, and to an extent for my knowledge of the local area, again they won’t get that if they outsource the job. 

My employer has simply reduced its offices and rented out surplus space to other organisations. 

In my world, right now, work is what you do - not where you do it. That might not translate to other sectors, but I can only talk from my own perspective. 

There are benefits to employers as well, a more satisfied workforce is a more productive one as @Sporky says.

I’m probably more available to my organisation than ever before, on a mobile phone, on teams -
basically wherever I am, I have the ability to respond and do work at times I couldn’t before when commuting. I’m also able to work late to meet deadlines or start very early - our office closes at 7pm. It’s not all weighted in the employees favour from my experience. 

VimFuego

fretmeister said:

Sporky said:

I have a dedicated home office. Lady BMcH generally deals with deliveries. It mostly works pretty well.

If I close the door I don't get disturbed unless it's actually an emergency. 

I have a 17 year old at home.

According to her, almost everything is an emergency. As she wants to be a nurse I think she needs to work on her triage skills a bit.

A&E may not be the calling for her, but she sounds absolutely perfect for a ward nurse. 

Adey

I'm in the management side of construction industry and you really can't manage a complicated construction project with lots of the team WFH. Problem solving and optioneering potential solutions is a large part of the job and it is not easy to do when people aren't in one space.

WFH is fine in a largely admin type of role or where your function is more insular, but if you want to cooperate in a fast moving environment those in the same place will be better than those who aren't.

Sporky

Adey said:

WFH is fine in a largely admin type of role or where your function is more insular, but if you want to cooperate in a fast moving environment those in the same place will be better than those who aren't.

We found that our admin people were mostly happier and more productive in the office or office-biased hybrid. Not all, but most. My team (systems design and tech pre-sales, essentially) is basically WFH but welcome in the office; most favour the former, but two spend noticeably more time in than the rest of us. When there's a problem to solve that needs help we have a Teams chat group or just video call, and that works very well. 

That said I do agree that not every role is best WFH. Not every person either - I know of a good few people who really need to be around other people. Not constant chatting, but they just don't do "alone" happily. 

It's weird; it's as if almost everything we talk about here doesn't have a simple, universal, binary answer.  

thecolourbox

The company I work for would be paying for their office whether I went to it or not, so I'm not sure why not going there means it's costing them more somehow? It is actually cheaper for them.in some ways as they don't have to pay for my frothy coffee consumption.

Is your implication of the world as we know it ending if people work from home meant to mean that we should all suffer a less good life in the hope that the big business overlords employ us forever more? No, they'll still do what they like when it suits them and drop you like a stone as soon as they legally can, and then you'll have spent the last X years of your working life in a miserable place for nothing 

fastonebaz

I don't understand some peoples' "need" to be around other people.  I cannot identify with that feeling at all. 

mrkb

fastonebaz said:

I don't understand some peoples' "need" to be around other people.  I cannot identify with that feeling at all. 

If you’re not very good at your job it helps to have others around to help you get the work done/ ask how to do it (aka brain storm )….

Rob1742

It’s very bad for peoples development. Interaction in the office is key and new starters can’t bounce off colleagues day to day like they used to. So individuals progress is being hampered without question. 

The other point is we spend all our time arranging meetings where suppliers can only do 11.00am as they have to take their kids to school first or pick them up. 

It will work for a percentage of people individually, but it’s not helping business and not helping new people who come into a business develop.

TheBigDipper

Quelle surprise - we're all different and have our own ideas of how we'd like to work and what we'd like to be paid! :-) 

This thread has been a fascinating read - thanks for sharing, everyone. Truly interesting how different we all are, and how different our personal WFH circumstances are with different flavours regarding the other people around us. 

I'm retired, so I won't bore anyone with my WFH experiences - they were all 10+ years ago and irrelevant, now, I suspect. 

Sporky

Rob1742 said:

It’s very bad for peoples development. Interaction in the office is key and new starters can’t bounce off colleagues day to day like they used to. So individuals progress is being hampered without question. 

I absolutely do question that. We've successfully, brought in a load of new people since going hybrid/WFH. It's about defining communication channels.

One of the problems with all being in an office is that people will just wander up to each other's desks with a question. Brilliant, you might think, except that now you've interrupted someone mid-flow, and disrupted their work. 

With online presence, you can make it clear to colleagues whether you're available for random questions, or if you're focused on a specific task, and when you'll be free again. 

With the right technology and processes, bringing new starters in works every bit as well as it ever did - possibly better, because if someone's not in the office you can still see if they're contactable. 

thecolourbox

Isn't it funny and coincidental that something which provides the business bosses with a sense of less control over their plebs is so resisted, and also how what is supposedly best for everybody is actually just what benefits the business the most and not giving the flexibility for the plebs to do what suits them and helps them to be more productive? 

The norms of work were presumably formulated a century ago when life was very different, I'd like to think things can progress and the only thing stopping the flexibility (ie the choice to work in or out of the office for those who each option suits) is that there's a resistance to find ways for it to work as it takes away the overlord > pleb dynamic.

And this one is much more of a personal gripe, but it does piss me off how people pretend that it's ok to be certain personality types ("We need introverts as much as we need extroverts really!") then design every single element of working life to only favour those who are extroverted and specifically isolates those of us who are not. Not to mention those who dare to be neurodiverse, ASD, ADD etc. "It's ok to be you....but no not like that"

My old job would have needed time in the office, but it was also a private hell for me wherever I was doing the job (that's another story though I suppose). It would still have benefitted from probably two days away from the office to escape the annoying smug pretentions of the colleagues and also to get some of the more focus-heavy tasks done. It would also have served to help me avoid those cringey work friday pub social occasions where everybody pretends they don't hate each other to drink fizzy piss in a crowded old bank.