Is Not Being Able to Work from Home a Reasonable Reason for Wanting to Leave Your Current Role?

Sydneyswans on 10/03/2022 - 12:15

Is not being able to work from home a reasonable reason for wanting to leave your current role? What's a nice way to put this in an interview for another role you've either applied or been headhunted for?

I'm not asking to work from home forever, I completely understand that we may need to see office colleagues on site from time to time but my employer is not offering the flexibility now that we have gone out of lockdowns/shadow lockdowns etc and I just want hybrid working arrangements.

Furthermore
1. It's turning people off as in my manager told me in some recent job interviews, people rejected the job based on that reason. 2. At least one person found another job this week because of that situation.

Thoughts?

Education & Work

Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 10/03/2022 - 12:20
    +43

    it is absolutely a reasonable reason. i can understand why an employer wants you to work from the office; they don't want to be paying you for 8 hours a day if you are only doing 4 - 6 hours and using some of the time they are paying you to work to do washing, cleaning etc even if you are putting out the same amount of work, but why would anyone want to work 8 hours in an office if they can do it in 6 hours in the comfort of their home?

    i'd suggest you look for work that will allow you to work from home now, while you have the negotiating power (everyone wants to WFH, so there is more demand than supply ATM) otherwise you might not be able to in the future.

    you have to remember that you are the one who must look out for your best interests, no ones going to do it for you.

    • Quantumcat on 10/03/2022 - 12:25
      +22

      I think even if you do only work for 6 hours at home the employer is benefiting. In the office there are pointless meetings, chatting to co-workers, long walks with co-workers to get coffee, etc. Probably employees spend less than 5 hours actively working when they're in the office. Then there is building rent and utilities they have to pay. And if employees are happier at home, then there is less turnover of staff, with knowledge being retained and less time spent training.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/03/2022 - 12:46
        -1

        they would be benefiting, but i doubt they would see it that way. if you are working from home and only spend 5 hours doing work and they found out, i doubt they would pay you for the 8 you were supposed to be doing, even if your work output was the same as when you were working in the office. it's just a control thing, they like having their employees in one place and don't like the idea of people enjoying life at home on company time.

        they probably won't stop renting the building if they are renting or sell it if they own it even if employees work from home, as it looks more professional to have an office and if you need to meet clients or something like that, it wouldn't be a good look to take them to your house rather than an office. full time work from home is probably not possible now that lockdowns are over (unless it's a call centre) but hybrid is still possible

        • jessekohn on 11/03/2022 - 08:28
          +1

          In terms of medium to long term planning though, companies are absolutely downsizing office space. I'm aware of companies basing office real estate decisions on 60 to 70% occupancy. Meaning 30 to 40% of their workforce being WFH / travelling at any given time.

      • tessel on 11/03/2022 - 18:59
        +2

        Pointless meetings? Man, what management do you have? Mine love pointless meetings as it justifies their job.

    • ozbloke2 on 11/03/2022 - 08:18

      Wow - also remember that if someone is paying you to do 8 hours of work, do 8 hours of work.

      • SlavOz on 14/03/2022 - 00:31

        OP isn't working at Mcdonald's. You don't get paid for hours clocked, you get paid for the value you add.

        Unless you're Elon Musk or the President, you're not doing more than 5 hours of productive work a day regardless of where you are. The typical 8 hour work day was devised with this very logic in mind. Standard work days are 8 hours because a long time ago employers figured that's how much time it takes to get 4-6 hours worth of productivity out of someone

        Of course as time went on we changed. Employees can now be more productive with adaptable ways of working. Throw technology in the picture and we can actually do more work in less time. Unfortunately management and work culture has not changed with the times. It's still stuck in the 1870s of way of paying someone to watch over other people.

        • ozbloke2 on 14/03/2022 - 20:11

          How do you know who OP works for or how his time is reckoned? His company might charge out his time - I don't know either. Sure, if it's an outcome-based role then that might change things, and I agree that outcome-based roles are a great thing where they make sense for the industry. But even then, if I was an employer and my staff had the attitude of 'do as little as I can' or worse, 'less than I'm employed to if I can get away with it', I wouldn't be happy. (and I wouldn't just put the blame on my staff, I'd be looking at my part in letting the culture get to that point too)

          • SlavOz on 15/03/2022 - 10:33

            @ozbloke2:

            attitude of 'do as little as I can' or worse, 'less than I'm employed to if I can get away with it'

            I don't think this is anyone's attitude. Like I said, humans are only capable of so much focus and output in a single work day. Employers know this. Nobody is going to do more than 4-6 hours of actual work in a day and they are never expected to.

            4-6 hours of productive work was acceptable for most companies while employees were in the office, why shouldn't it be acceptable when they're working from home?

            If employers want more output from their staff, raising work hours or forcing them into the office is not the solution. The only way people are going to push themselves to do more work is if they get paid more.

            • ozbloke2 on 16/03/2022 - 08:14

              @SlavOz:

              Nobody is going to do more than 4-6 hours of actual work in a day and they are never expected to.

              In my industry, everyone is absolutely expected to do more than 4-6 hours of actual work in a day. 6 at the minimum - a chargeability rate of at least 80%. And the other 2 hours, while maybe not chargeable are still doing things that need to be done. Big difference between private industry and public though, I can definitely see the lower expectations in public.

              The only way people are going to push themselves to do more work is if they get paid more.

              Now this is an outdated employer mindset. Pay is an important factor, but far from the biggest factor in how much employees push themselves - plenty of research has been done on this. e.g. https://social.hays.com/2016/04/26/5-things-that-motivate-yo…

  • Quantumcat on 10/03/2022 - 12:21
    +3

    Definitely reasonable

  • ThithLord on 10/03/2022 - 12:21
    +10

    In this day and age it is completely reasonable.

    • serbpie on 11/03/2022 - 23:51
      +1

      JV, is that you ?

  • tsunamisurfer on 10/03/2022 - 12:29
    +1

    Yes it isn't unreasonable in these times to WFH or hybrid working.

    Companies may not agree with it but will appreciate the feedback at exit interview.

    If enough people leave giving the same feedback then they know they have an issue they need to address.

  • Porker on 10/03/2022 - 12:29

    Hang on.. when people reply 'it's reasonable'; are they saying it's reasonable to leave your job because of no longer WFH? Or reasonable that the boss asks you to come in to the office to work?

    • scrimshaw on 10/03/2022 - 12:31
      +7

      The former. People are saying workers are embracing WFH as the new normal and it's reasonable to quit the job if managers don't give you the option.

      • Porker on 10/03/2022 - 12:35

        Cheers! @scrimshaw

        OP, it's reasonable to want to leave and actually leave provided you have another occupation or income source. There might be any number of reasons that your employer is requesting you come into the office to continue work. If doing so doesn't sit well with you, then again, yes reasonable for you to resign.

  • afoveht on 10/03/2022 - 12:32
    +39

    Anything is a "reasonable reason" for leaving your current role. You don't owe your employer anything.

  • rektrading on 10/03/2022 - 12:36
    +5

    Stuff employers that don't want WFH.

    There are plenty of workplaces that are more flexible.

  • drose1 on 10/03/2022 - 12:36
    +6

    I think it's a valid reason.

    For me, it's less about actually having the ability to WFH. but rather, how the organisation adapts to change. Their ability to adapt to changing environments may somewhat illustrate how they are as a company - their ability to grow and evolve.

    I'm not saying that every company that doesn't offer a WFH option = bad company. there are many other factors too.

    I was recently in the market for a new job too - had a few offers, a couple from companies with no WFH option, but ended up choosing one that offered me the freedom.

  • newjerseydamo on 10/03/2022 - 12:37
    +3

    At a new interview and if they ask why you're leaving your existing role, just state "my current role doesn't provide certain things I am looking for".
    If they then ask what you're looking for, answer with "flexibility, trust, responsibility", and leave it at that.

    • cunningdrew on 11/03/2022 - 18:57
      +1

      Disagree. Be upfront and honest about it. You expect a blended WFH environment at a minimum. If the employer says they cannot wait to get back to the office, why would you waste your time there for a month or two and then have to start again?

      I work in tech and got a job offer last week for 25% more cash which I said no to because I like my WFH job now. The new role would be a blend home and office, but they're private enterprise so will go back longer term for sure.

    • JelIyfish on 11/03/2022 - 20:34
      +2

      "flexibility, trust, responsibility"
      Highlighting that you don't think your current employer trusts you is a red flag. I would just say it how it is, 'I want the flexibility of WFH and current employer is enforcing all staff are to be on site.'

  • freefall101 on 10/03/2022 - 12:46

    It's perfectly reasonable, being a jobseekers market at the moment most employers are promoting the hell out of their flexibility so not to offer it at all is a bit nuts. But I would talk to them about it (although it sounds like you might have with your manager). I quit a job once because I didn't like living there, they actually said they would have let me work remotely if I'd just asked. I'd already accepted another job though.

    I would be careful how you phrase it though for a new job. I work in a flexible environment right now and it differs from manager to manager and staff member to staff member what their take is on that - they recently had to send out an email saying that interstate/international relocations wouldn't be approved and that we needed to be able to physically make it to the office (beyond that, we're encouraged to do at least 1 day a week and there's zero required office time, so they're definitely flexible). Make sure to phrase it as flexibility, not "I quit because I couldn't work from home", they'll get what you mean without thinking you're one of the crazy ones.

    • bobbified on 10/03/2022 - 13:44
      +3

      ..they recently had to send out an email saying that interstate/international relocations wouldn't be approved

      There's actually a reason for this to do with payroll taxes that vary from state to state. Once you've work in a different state for X number of days, your employer is meant to pay the tax in that state or something like that.

      • freefall101 on 10/03/2022 - 16:35
        +3

        I'm the poor bastard who would have had to do the system config changes if they did go interstate too.

        We actually already have international employees, but yeah, not as simple as simply paying in whatever country, it was far more work than it was worth. Yet people still asked. They still want us available in the office from time to time too, which I don't think is unreasonable.

        • macfudd on 10/03/2022 - 21:31
          +4

          This is a challenge the company I work at is having. People are allowed to work from home, but now that borders are open they want to work from anywhere, but they also don't want to actually notify the company when they do so, they just head off.

          It's bad enough if it's just interstate, but they head off internationally too. Even to countries where they don't have visa's to work (they enter on a holiday visa) and all of a sudden the company is illegally employing someone and facing massive fines.

  • jakka on 10/03/2022 - 12:50
    +4

    Is your employer saying that you can never work from home, or just whilst you would be new in that position?

    Having recruited and trained people remotely during the lockdowns, I definately find it easier and faster to train someone in person, and my new starters have also said that would be easier. You can read their body language, see what they are doing, and answer questions on the fly.

    My work does offer great flexibility and I believe it will continue long term. However if I was to recruit now, I would be inititally looking for the new team member to work in the office (but maybe only 3 days a week) whilst they got up to speed.

  • dust on 10/03/2022 - 12:58
    +3

    I would apply for new jobs today if my employer told me I couldn't work from home.

  • bobbified on 10/03/2022 - 13:29
    +1

    It all comes down to the requirements of your role. If you're working alone to get stuff done, then WFH is fair enough. I think the output of certain roles would be higher in the office than at home - especially those that require lots of cross-team collaboration such as analysts etc..

    When you say "not being able to work from home", I'm assuming you mean your employer isn't allowing you to work from home at all (as opposed to the hybrid model that most employers seem to be going to…).

    If I was interviewing and you told me that was your only reason for wanting to leave your current role, I'd be wondering in my mind if there's anything else you're not telling me.

    • Ghost47 on 10/03/2022 - 14:12
      +1

      When you say "not being able to work from home", I'm assuming you mean your employer isn't allowing you to work from home at all

      I was a bit confused about the title too, I thought that the OP couldn’t work from home for some reason. Maybe if OP said “allowed” instead of “able” it’d be a bit clearer.

  • Ghost47 on 10/03/2022 - 14:10
    +1

    I guess it’s reasonable?

    But then if you can leave a role based on your expectations that you should be able to WFH, should you have a right to complain if an employer rejects you because their expectation is for people to work in the office 5 days a week? I’d say no.

    The world is changing I guess but some companies haven’t quite caught up or accepted that a hybrid WFH model is what future of work could be.

  • Drakesy on 10/03/2022 - 14:29
    +4

    In my government job this is up there with the top reasons why people are leaving. My wording though was i wanted to explore a more technical area and increase working flexibility.

    I'm currently transitioning out of government purely because of this lack of flexibility (and a 40% pay rise and car) - old boys club running the show and aren't progressive at all. It's about time that employers actually were forced to meet the needs of it's employees for a change and you have every right to give that as a job.

    As part of my new job requirements i asked, that as i hadn't taken any leave for 2 years if they were ok with me taking off ~4 weeks in the first 6 months and they were more than fine.

    Honestly, if you're going searching for a job now, its one of the best times in history to do it.

    • Velt on 10/03/2022 - 17:13

      State or Fed?

      • Drakesy on 10/03/2022 - 17:37

        State

        • Velt on 10/03/2022 - 17:55

          Which WA Dept were you based in? have been thinking of trying to move around. I'm currently also employed in WA state gov and finding it a bit stagnant in my area.

          • Drakesy on 10/03/2022 - 18:02
            +1

            @Velt: I'd get into a pseudo government entity personally. All the gov perks with none of the stagnant bs.

            Sticking around in state gov is much the same too many people not enough work and will get frustrating eventually

            • Velt on 10/03/2022 - 18:38

              @Drakesy: Can you clarify what you mean by pseudo gov?

              • Drakesy on 10/03/2022 - 18:46

                @Velt: Basically any secondary entity where the sole owner is government but it works as a private organisation.
                Some transport companies/ports/utilities operate like this

                • Velt on 10/03/2022 - 18:55

                  @Drakesy: Oh right, yeah I work for one like that. Everyone is entrenched and there is no room to move. Guess it's not that much better elsewhere

                  • Drakesy on 10/03/2022 - 19:46

                    @Velt: Yeah its pretty much a waiting game

  • tallkid123 on 10/03/2022 - 14:44
    +2

    Completely reasonable.
    A recruiter contacted me yesterday about a role and when it specifically said 'expected to be in most of the week', I immediately binned it.
    On Tuesday this week, I was working with a colleague on something and they asked if I could come in to the office. I declined because I knew it wasn't necessary for me to turn up and lo and behold, the Sydney floods did their thing and cutoff train access from my area to the CBD so going in the next day definitely wasn't happening for me.

  • orangetrain on 10/03/2022 - 14:46
    +3

    $6 x 2 x 250 = $3,000 per year to go to work/home.

    1 x 2 x 250 = 500 hours in going to work/home per year. Lets say you get minimum wage of $20ph, that's $10,000 per year at least.

    Going back to work is a massive pay cut of at least $13,000. Ask for travel allowance and a raise equivalent to the hours spent going to work. Otherwise you're literally getting less than your wfh colleagues. That's not counting expensive lunches, risks you face to get to work/home, sharing yummy pathogens, etc.

    Hard facts for the employer too.

    • JDMcarfan on 10/03/2022 - 15:06
      +1

      great points! maybe not the 250 days per year part (as most people would happily adjust with a 3-4 day WFH week but your argument stands strong. Plus most people with WFH opportunities are white-collar professionals where hourly income are more generally double if not alot more than what you've stated, so makes it all the all the more true.

    • fredblogs on 11/03/2022 - 13:33
      +1

      Gotta factor in some expenses with WFH though, eg higher utility bills

    • dufflover on 12/03/2022 - 01:32
      -1

      Agree with the sentiment, and I'd throw in the odd coffee or lunch, and I would usually take in lunch.

      But claiming commute time is worth $10k is stupid sorry. You are not paid for your commute time.

      • fredblogs on 15/03/2022 - 12:14

        Er that's the point. You spend unpaid time commuting which is why people would rather be at home.

  • mooney on 10/03/2022 - 14:46
    +1

    Agree with some of the other comments. I would phrase it that you value the modern hybrid approach to working, and that this company not being able to support has prompted you to find alternative employment.

    I think that’s absolutely fine. I MUCH prefer WFH but I also know others in my team that hate it, so hybrid approach is prolly the best of both worlds for a company.

  • [Deactivated] on 10/03/2022 - 15:20

    Is not being able to work from home a reasonable reason for wanting to leave your current role?

    Yes. Like saying no to a role that might require you to work in outer Botswana (assuming Botswana isn't a great location for you).

    What's a nice way to put this in an interview for another role you've either applied or been headhunted for?

    "The workplace location for my previous role did not support a strong work-life balance nor did it allow me to fully contribute during my most creative/productive times of the day"

    It's turning people off as in my manager told me in some recent job interviews, people rejected the job based on that reason.

    And that's fair enough. Employers' right to determine workplace location and prospective employees' prerogative to say if 100% WFH / Hybrid / 100% Office isn't right for them.

    At least one person found another job this week because of that situation

    Unsurprising. I have one friend who is quitting her role because the employer as committed to an ongoing hybrid model (3 days WFH, 2 days office) and she needs to be around others to be happy/productive/productive. She's moving to a competitor who is pushing an WFH-by-exception approach.

  • GenghisGun on 10/03/2022 - 15:28

    To oversimplify it, there's clearly pros and cons to both full WFH and full work in office.

    I think that there's a strong case for hybrid models where workers, individual situation dependent, work from home and in office in varying ratios. I myself would strongly preference a role that had the option to WFH around 4 days a week, that's the sweet spot for my role and industry, and I would most likely entertain options to leave my employer for another more flexible one if the ability to WFH was stripped from me permanently.

    Thankfully, my employer is smart enough to know that hard and fast rules don't favour staff retention regarding WFH, but there is still the lingering insinuation that we should be in the office a fair chunk of our week where possible; I attribute this to two things: the demographic of management; and the inherent conflict of interest that they rent a huge multi floor office building, and there's probably not many people in it.

    There is benefit to in-person collaboration for specific tasks, two i can think of:
    -fast paced projects with lots of coordination/interfacing with others; and
    -hiring/training new or junior staff.

    But I think it's the new way of the world, and businesses need to be flexible or be left behind. My expectation is that improvements in technology (having got us this far) will continue, and workers/management will adapt to the new way of working such that the default will be mostly WFH to reduce overheads and improve staff retention, and most will get better at working remotely to the point where people will wonder why we ever worked together in a big sweaty office building in the first place.

  • Cheaplikethebird on 10/03/2022 - 16:07
    +1

    If its something you value and other employers are offering it then whether or not it's reasonable doesn't matter.

  • Sydneyswans on 10/03/2022 - 16:37

    Thanks for the responses guys. To clarify decision to take us to full time office was not made by us or my direct manager but upper level management. Team members and my direct managers do not agree with 100% in the office. I am hoping they will consider the option to WFH as least as a partial option. I am not asking for WFH all of the time, just for a the opportunity for flexibility.

    • bobbified on 10/03/2022 - 16:55

      From your earlier posts, it seems to be Link. I have friends that work there in the project space that have not been recalled to the office 100% of the time. So the decision from management probably only applies for certain roles/areas.

    • macfudd on 11/03/2022 - 01:31
      +1

      If it is Link, I worked there for nearly a decade (left in 2019). Sat in on quite a few meetings over the years with senior leaders around improving staff retention. If the idea of letting non-managers WFH was raised it was always shut down on the spot, "that's not the Link way". Was honestly surprised they allowed it during the pandemic.

      You could have an open and professional conversation with your manager, have a proposal for a flexible hybrid arrangement for them to look over, be prepared to compromise. Ask for their help in getting it approved. The challenge is, if you have one of the more traditional Ops-level Managers, it's gonna be a hard no when it reaches them. If you're in one of the fund teams, the odds are against you honestly.

      The best option by far is to jump to one of the clients asap. Like bookmark their jobs pages and check them a couple times a week. Go do it right now. They pay better and have far greater flexibility.

      To your original question about what to say in a job interview, I generally suggest avoiding bringing up negatives from your current company as much as possible. Phrase it so that you sound motivated by a pull, not a push.

      e.g. "With the market so hot this year I've been keeping an eye out for interesting roles. I'm lucky in that I have a job that I enjoy and can take my time because it's important to me to take the best next step to grow my career, not just throw my CV around and see where it sticks etc etc." Be sure to drop in there something about being 'passionate about getting the best outcomes for members retirement' if it's for a client. Work it into every answer.

      When you speak with the recruiter for the initial screening they will almost certainly bring up any hybrid working policies. If they don't then ask them directly if they have one and what it involves - high level.
      Recruiters expect this question. Hybrid working barely counts as a 'perk' any more. They know many quality applicants see it as a base line requirement of a company.

      When you have your proper interview and they ask if you have any questions say - 'Tony in recruiting gave me an overview of the hybrid working policy. Could you expand on how this works in your team/department, what's expected for your team?" That way if your manager says 'Oh, we can work from home but we all come in M, W, F for my manager update meetings' then you can decide from there.

      When Link asks you why you're leaving, that's when you say 'No hybrid working policy'.

  • slow on 10/03/2022 - 17:03
    +2

    If my employer told me I had to return to the office full-time I would leave

  • [Deactivated] on 10/03/2022 - 17:08
    +3

    I think any company forcing staff to work from the office 5 days a week are likely to find they won't have any staff after a few months. Bargaining power lies with the employee at present, not the employer, very difficult times to recruit if you aren't offering flexible hours and looking for qualified candidates

  • crentist on 10/03/2022 - 18:42

    no
    do as youre told
    no questions
    back to work

  • altomic on 10/03/2022 - 22:40

    I'm seriously considering leaving my job as they won't allow me to work from home. I've organised all my coworkers to form a support/protest group. We call it "the freedom dentists"

  • monkeybusiness on 10/03/2022 - 23:07

    WFH is definitely a perk and will be part of the many considerations for any candidates in today's job market. Its not the only factor but it will certainly play a role.

    If all else being equal, and a job that can be done remotely then requiring you to go in to office every day is certainly going to rub employees the wrong way. Totally understand requiring to go in 1-2 days a week for collaboration with teammates but 4-5 days is overkill and is counterproductive to productivity

    • Ghost47 on 11/03/2022 - 13:00
      -1

      Totally understand requiring to go in 1-2 days a week for collaboration with teammates but 4-5 days is overkill and is counterproductive to productivity

      I hope more organizations start seriously considering a four day work week. I would actually work at a place where it’s 4 days in the office but a 4 day work week. Studies have shown a 4 day work week can actually increase productivity and make your employees happier.

      Too bad that most people who run businesses in Australia are conservative and likely vote for the backwards LNP who are hell bent on keeping with “tradition” and hate any sort of progress though. We are where we are as a nation because of the terrible LNP and their voters.

  • Ashbargin on 11/03/2022 - 08:32

    One of the big issue facing employers with WFH, is the workers comp liability. They have no real way of controlling the working setup. If you slip in your bathroom are you at home or work? Neck issue from sitting at your computer work related or personal time you spent at the computer?

    • souljah on 12/03/2022 - 10:18

      Some good points and there would be a tonne of people doing very slow but cumulative damage to their neck/back/spines due to poor posture and desk setup. Not to mention prolonged sitting as they might not be taking as many breaks as usual to go over to another desk, get water/coffee or fresh air since they can now just click over to another screen with ozbargain or similar on there to browse. Then their is the anxiety and depression that can happen if feeling alone/isolation.

      On the flip side - I could walk into pretty much any office and point out a bunch chair, posture and desk setup issues. Even if the business has set them up correctly they will just adjust back settings, swap out chairs etc. The business is likely more liable in that environment then someone working from their home unless they have photos and clear documentation of the ergonomic setup and how they are monitoring to make sure it is being used correctly blah blah blah.

  • zoecot on 11/03/2022 - 08:42

    I changed job for the same reason. But instead of mentioning I love WFH, I just passive agreesive saying I changed job as I want to work closer to home specially last 2 years we hv lock down on & off.

  • Ghost47 on 11/03/2022 - 12:53

    Does anyone actually “work” from home?

    For me a WFH day involves waking up at 9:00, turning on my computer, opening Notepad and putting a weight on my space bar, going back to bed until 12, waking up and browsing the news and jiggling my mouse every couple of minutes then logging off.

    • fredblogs on 11/03/2022 - 15:43

      How much do you get paid for this great contribution?

    • souljah on 12/03/2022 - 10:08

      Should change your username to Ghost24/7 and then maybe at least go and use this free time to help out some charities or people in need.

      • Ghost47 on 12/03/2022 - 14:10

        I would if I didn’t need money for a house.

  • Silly-sausage88 on 11/03/2022 - 17:35
    +2

    Yes. Whatever reason you want to leave your current role is reasonable. Do what works for you.

  • Sinful on 11/03/2022 - 17:36

    Need a poll.

    That's a yes from me.

  • Goldenra1n on 11/03/2022 - 19:21

    I WFH 100% I quit my old job as I was working 2 days in office and got 45% pay rise too.

  • [Deactivated] on 11/03/2022 - 20:32
    -3

    I really dislike this WFH trend. It's absolutely made life hell for lots regional communities that didn't earn the money people who work in the city do now can't afford to live where they are due to the massive influx of people and increase rent prices.

    • Ghost47 on 11/03/2022 - 21:24

      Blame investors too, they’re destroying communities by making everything short term rentals via AirBnb.

    • GenghisGun on 14/03/2022 - 12:28

      In saying this you are saying that you hate that greater affordability has been granted to all of those who can now access work remotely without being tied to a big city. A huge portion of these people will have improvements in mental health, lifestyles and general wellbeing not having to live in a city.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2022 - 14:44

        You chose a career that required work in the city. If anything, you're probably pretty well off to have that opportunity in the first place i.e. uni and often made more money anyways. Or you could move to regionally and find work that probably isn't so good/high paying. They were more than fine before. Now they're just displacing others unnecessarily.

        • GenghisGun on 14/03/2022 - 14:51

          you miss the point, several actually. One being that remote working enables the higher salaries and better jobs in more locations than just the city (where you are restricted to a city lifestyle), and two being that those opportunities aren't just available in more places for yuppies but for everyone; it means that those in regional towns are able to compete for those jobs too enabling them to do more types of work without having to leave their own community. Howver, I can see how this would be frustrating for someone who already lived regionally and was looking for a house to buy/rent without seeing any increase in income.

          • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2022 - 14:59

            @GenghisGun: Yeah that's very true. Unfortunately though education in metro vs regional are really different and in that sense, puts even more disadvantage on regional people because they either have to get a high paying job to compete with those who have them living in their area working from home, or their options for moving are becoming really limited. Whereas before it was like, they might not have flashy jobs or high paying ones, but they could afford to live in their area. Now seemingly overnight, that opportunity is gone increasing inequality for no reason apart from the fact that people, who had a good income and a good job to begin with, decided they could have a piece of that cheap realestate while not contributing much to the community. Then, as mentioned above, fueled further by investors. This won't get better but worse with the huge teacher shortage, especially in regional areas where a school could be looking to fill 5-6 maths positions and churn through CRT's who do nothing for the kids until they either luckily find one, or just decide to throw anyone in there for a more permanent role.

  • Hearthstone on 11/03/2022 - 22:10
    +2

    Lot of tech companies offer the flexibility to work where ever you want, they after result not where you sits.

    Atlassian recently give the employee the option they can work any where and don’t need to come into the office
    So you can move to rural or country town or stay home full time But they have office you can come in and mingle if you want

    I get to work from home a few days a week before pandemic
    Since pandemic full time at home but I like to come into the office a few days a week if there is no restriction to mingle and a break from home environment.

    At home I sometimes tend to sit there for hours on end if I am on a roll and know how to solve the problem and start cutting code for it.

    I must admit I have it pretty good and graceful I don’t have to work says Tuesday if I got something to do or taking my kids some where I can make up after 5pm or work Weekend. I am happy they are happy, I get regular pay rise wins wins and leaving for another job never cross my mind for the last 10 years and won’t be for the next 10 as I ride into the retirement sunset

  • serpserpserp on 12/03/2022 - 08:02
    +1

    I really dislike my office. If I had to work from there full time I would be looking for a new job. Luckily they are being pretty flexible about it currently, but over time businesses are going to want people back in the office more. I don't think I could bare more than 2 days a week personally, feels so exhausting than it use to. This is from a guy that literally use to do 12 hour days 4-5 days a week and sometimes log a full day on the weekend.

    1. It's turning people off as in my manager told me in some recent job interviews, people rejected the job based on that reason.

    It is interesting that ultimately companies are going to have to pay people more, or accept staff that aren't as qualified just to get them to work at a desk in their office. Be interesting to see if this will be worth it.

  • souljah on 12/03/2022 - 10:27

    It will be interesting to see how the WFH impacts over the next few years. I think nearly every business and job role should have some form of hybrid model. I don't think many people will be at their absolute best in either a full at work or full at home environment. Some people it is 4-1 others 1-4 or just flexibility to change start/finish times as required that has them working best. I also strongly believe in a 4 day week and even a 3 day week or 7 day fortnight. Maybe 2 days in the office or 3 per fortnight is best balance for meetings, getting on the same page etc. A lot of City offices had people doing f all most of Friday, especially after lunch anyway.

    My biggest concern is that working and interacting with people face to face is an important skill that needs to be used and worked on. Being suddenly shut off from that for long periods can lead to a lot of anxiety and awkwardness when going back to it. This then leads to wanting avoid it or blame the office as the problem when it is actually a symptom.
    We are social creatures by nature and depression risks can increase.

  • Homr on 12/03/2022 - 11:15
    +3

    Absolutely!

    WFH is not a perk or benefit now, its a standard and the norm. Employers that don't believe in WFH are way behind their competitors and will lose talent sooner or later

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join