Be Careful Pushing for Full-Time WFH. Don't Give Your Company an Excuse to Outsource Your Job

A lot of people pushing for full-time WFH. Let's not kid ourselves by claiming we're more productive at home. especially if you have kids. Other distractions: telly, PS5/ XSX/ Switch, interactions with housemates/ pets (instead of interactions with co-workers in an office environment). And a lot of procrastinating - "I can do that later after dinner." "I'll just turn my laptop on and login while I go to the shops, cook, eat, nap and check OzBargain. They won't know the difference."

Don't give your boss an excuse to outsource your job interstate/ overseas or find another employee willing to work in an office environment. If you're boss/ supervisor/ superior is willing to rock up the office every day, what makes you think you're ok to WFH? Oh, you also want the same pay for WFH? What's that, you want a payrise?

Poll Options

  • 754
    WFH
  • 64
    WIO

Comments

    • +9

      Funnily enough, talking to our HR team, they found it easier with most people at home. When someone did something dumb there's almost always an electronic record rather than a he said/she said situation.

      Now that people are getting back in the office there's also been a sudden increase in sexual harrassment cases from teams organising 'get to know you' team drinks. Apparently a number of middle managers seem to have forgotten that it's not ok to hit on your staff.

    • +2

      also work later and more hours because I'm not wasting my life away on a commute.

      Imagine this being a brag, working for free. If you were in the office you'd be complaining they are making you work for free but WFH and you gladly do it.

      I was guilty of this in 2020, was easily working 60hrs a week but in the end I set boundaries and logged off after working a normal work day unless I was working on something important.

  • +29

    I've been WFH for 11 years, for a multinational IT consultancy. I couldn't deal with going back in the office again. I don't waste 2 hrs of my day commuting for a start. Because I work in a global role, my day can be long to cover EU and NA meetings, but as long as I have my work done, I have the freedom to do it whenever it suits me. If I have to see a doctor, or goto Bunnings or whatever, I just fit it into my day and do my work around it. It's so much better than being stuck in the office all day.

    As others have said, not all jobs can go overseas because of security concerns. In my line of work, if they're hiring someone from TAS/WA, (using the example above) it's because they're better at their job than you, not because they're cheaper. You need to make yourself valuable, like you would in any job. If they're only hiring you because you're the person physically closer, that doesn't speak highly of your skills.

    • +1

      Agreed.
      People are equal, regardless of the country they live. If an offshore worker can do your job better, faster, cheaper, then you have failed to bring value to your role and you should find a position where you can bring value.

  • +7

    Don't give your boss an excuse to outsource your job interstate/ overseas

    I don't understand what you're trying to say. If my job is outsourced interstate or overseas, wouldn't the person taking the job also be WFH?

    • overseas? probably a big office, similar to a call centre

      • +13

        I find it interesting that you think having a butt in a seat in an office is the only thing keeping someone in a job…

        • +2

          maybe because he has no other skill

        • +3

          Yeah that's what's got me curious with this post and a lot of comments.

          If you're job could be outsourced, why do you think merely your physical presence in the office is stopping that?

  • +2

    Let's face it, there are people that want to go into the office and there are people that want to WFH. Each have their own reasons and there is no reason for them to fight with each other. That's what all the middle mangers and property management people want so that we fight it out and they can justify everyone being force back into the office. It doesn't have to be that way. And as for the outsourcing bit, companies are going to company. If it's truly a "free market" then employees kind find somewhere else to work.

  • +16

    You sound like a manager who is desperately trying to convince people WFH is horrible so you can stand over their shoulder to ensure they are working.

    Current company tried outsourcing overseas. Lasted about 4 years and now they are desperately trying to move back onshore (with everyone on WFH). Now we're moving back to onshore we can't get enough people to fill out open positions so the company is forced to offer things like WFH now otherwise it's a non-starter for most applicants.

    Thing about offshoring jobs is culture and time-zones can make it difficult for a lot of positions. It's OK to offshore low-to-mid level roles but it's really hard to offshore the higher level roles. Thing is if you offshore all the low-mid levels then there is no onshore people getting experience needed to get to higher level roles. Then as business expand, or new companies are formed those high-level positions are now in huge shortages.

  • +8

    The WFH trend is actually a win-win for both the employer and employee.

    1. The employers don't need to rent out an office building or parking lot (cost saving)

    2. The employees don't need to live in the more expensive parts of the cities where rents are high, housing prices are high and the cost of travelling is also high (fuel prices)

    You could live in a regional area like Bathurst (or even further, where housing is cheaper) and would be able to apply for jobs that you previously wouldn't have been able to.

    Jobs that could previously be outsourced would already have been outsourced anyway, but overall the availability of WFH jobs eliminates the tyranny of distance.

    this comment by gnostikos explains why outsourcing doesn't always work out, at least in the IT sector. But the TLDR is that outsourcing to some cheaper country doesn't always produce cost savings for the company.

    • +1

      I was about to say it doesn't work well in IT until I saw your linked comment. A lot of jobs require onsite work, but at least with the ability to do so much remotely it's not the worst thing when someone ends up in iso.

    • +2

      I've been in IT long enough to have seen roles go OS, then come back, then go OS again and come back again. It works in some cases but there are plenty where it doesn't and maybe the majority where no benefit is ever actually realised.

    • The employers don't need to rent out an office building or parking lot (cost saving)

      What about all the people who have jobs that can't be done remotely or the people who can't work from home due to various reasons? A lot of people just have this idea that just because they are WFH that everyone must be and therefore the office doesn't exist.

      I'd say 50% of my company is WFH while the other 50% are going in regularly, oh so we can just save 50% on office space? Wrong. The space still exists. Saving on office space only happens if everyone is WFH.

      • +3

        What about all the people who have jobs that can't be done remotely

        Technology and time changes work environments.

        Australia used to produce 4 car brands and now they've zero.

        Taxi drivers corned the market and then came UBER.

        Hotels/motels were the only place to stay until Airbnb was invented.

        Blockbuster was the flavour for decades but got blockbusted when they 😅 at Netflix.

        Western Union was the only way to send borderless 💵 for 100Y before digital currencies nuked their monopoly.

        Change is inevitable. People who can't or refuse to accept change will be left behind.

      • +2

        We dropped half our lease/floors.

        So we have a direct saving right there, we have a booking system to make sure that its never over booked (it never is its a ghost town when people turn up).

        Unless you own the building, or have a 10 year lease or something you can reduce the space.

  • -2

    Chose a profession that requires a local licence or practicing certificate..

  • +10

    "If you're boss/ supervisor/ superior is willing to rock up the office every day, what makes you think you're ok to WFH?"

    Because a lot of bosses/supervisors realise that their roles are redundant when they're not going into the office wasting time

    • +1

      Because a lot of bosses/supervisors realise that their roles are redundant when they're not going into the office wasting time

      No, because they realise that politics > productivity.

      Can’t believe that so many here are so naïve to how any kind of organisation works.

  • +8

    How menial is your job that attendance in an office from 9-5 is a major benefit to your employer?

    There are clearly jobs that are customer or client facing, but if you're job involves just rocking up to an office and sitting at a PC..if you think your butt being on the seat has some tangible value than what does that say to how the company values the rest of you apart from your butt…

  • +3

    I’ve been pretty much WFH for the past 5 years, my hours vary per day. Some times I’m working long hours (like 9-9), sometimes I don’t even need to turn on my pc and I can work from my phone.

    It’s more the flexibility to do stuff. Need to pick up the kids, go to the doc, go to the gym, easy.

  • +14

    Seems balanced and unbiased.

    You must be mates with SlavOz.

  • +1

    Employers are obviously all desperate because they don't have to pay rent for massive offices in the CBD going forward, and they won't put with that much longer, we need to go back to our archaic ways ASAP. /s

  • +15

    OP, guess you missed the news bulletin that Telstra, after outsourcing several departments offshore over the past decade, is moving them all back onshore and majority WFH due to the piss poor performance/stats from outsourcing which resulted in mass porting out/complaints.

    • Reminds me of when I worked for Pacnet during their Telstra acquisition. Telstra would 'subcontract' Pacnet to do router installations for their enterprise clients.

      First the Cisco router was located in India and was loaned off a European ISP, it would then fly to Hong Kong for configuration, sent to Sydney to be checked and then to the site. Telstra Global would subcontract Telstra Australia who would subcontract Pacnet to go onsite for the install. You'd rock up introducing yourself as Telstra only to find there was an actual Telstra technician there hooking up the copper.

      It was good easy money. Drive 2 hours, hook up router, confirm everyone above had access, leave site and drive back.

    • Yep can confirm. Vendor engagement is still high but there's a big push to convert these in house so there's less reliance on them as well.

    • +3

      I have suspicion that the reason why their outsourcing performance is poor is because telstra does not or can not give them enough power/authority to actually solve the customer problem. Everything has to be escalated to the local team.

  • +2

    To each their own. My job cannot be done remotely, but does have a good work life balance. Through lockdown was glad I got to go to work. Think I would find it difficult to separate work and home otherwise.

  • +2

    It depends on the type of work and if you work local timezones or a global one.

    There isn’t a one size fits all for employers or employees.

  • +5

    Sending a job overseas is way harder than jumping on the internet and finding an employee. You need to setup payroll software to pay that person, usually register a company in the local country, file separate tax returns, corporate returns and adhere to all local health and safety and corporate laws. It costs a fortune.

    If a company sends jobs overseas they're not going to do it because Bob in accounting has dropped his productivity by 20%. A company will move jobs overseas en masse and regardless of how effective their local employees are. If you're (profanity) around at home all day they'll just get rid of you - put you on a performance plan and when you fail because you're playing Switch all day you'll be out the door. There are people who (profanity) around and do nothing in the office too, that's what happens to them as well.

    OP, it sounds like you're projecting a fair bit. If you can't get work done at home then go to the office, problem solved. I also get more work done at home. No people who talk shit all day and can't focus on their work, no people wandering by my desk to "just ask me a question" (I love "do not disturb" on Teams), I can block out my calendar and get a solid few hours work done with zero distractions, I can't do that in the office.

    My job also involves local accounting and employment laws, good luck finding someone overseas with decades of experience in that.

  • +3

    What a good idea OP, I'm going to move to a third world country for far cheaper cost of living and get paid the same. How's the office life for you?

  • +12

    OP sounds like a pissed off business owner.

    Other half's company mandated 3 days in the office regardless if there is meeting, no meeting or work to do. All of management is going interstate on a junket and everyone is told to still come in. Word is the founders signed a lease on a new office just before the pandemic and feels like they are getting ripped off when it isn't in use and almost in tears.

    Company I work for, recently been told we can go back to the office and 2 - 3 days a week is ideal. So far most of the organisation is only in office one day a week. We moved to smaller offices during pandemic knowing we're going to be working less from the office, we're moving to even smaller offices given the future of work.

    I don't have pets, game console etc but I do have a kid. Anyone who had kids, have kids and want kids should really take notice because everyone is going to go through it and it isn't a pleasant experience sometimes. When they get sick it might not be from the parents (WFH) but them getting sent to child care so the parents can get their job done. Parents also sometimes catch it that is what sick, carer leave and annual leave is for. Before having a kid I basically never took any sick leave, I'm not invincible to germs and non of my colleagues have admitted they are.

    • +2

      Na, OP sounds like a pissed off middle manager who's finally realised their role is irrelevant now.

      • Probably. Some middle managers need to get back into the office to be seen and the direct reports don't care. Nobody in the office to tell at.

        Other half's office is like that. Middle managers making less money than I towing the line.

        I've pulled off standing up a demerger in the last two years from home so people ain't going to paint the targets onto my back.

  • +11

    Hmmmm… interaction with my kids and pets or interaction with my arsehole workmates and toxic micro-managing superior… it’s a tough decision.

    • toxic micro-managing superior

      If so, OP’s user profile pic checks out.

  • Seems many places are going "hybrid" - and having gone back a few days I can certainly say I enjoyed the "break" of going into the office, having some face to face time for 1 or 2 days a week. So, that's my vote!

    Edit: However there are fundamental differences between working for an organisation from home, and providing a service as part of a separate company. When you work for the same company you (if the company manages properly) are aligned to the strategy, are rewarded for delivering on that strategy, WFH or not. If you work for an outsourcer, you are aligned to your own organisations strategy and are rewarded accordingly, and those might vary or even conflict with the recipient of the service.

    • If you aren't pro hybrid you are on the wrong side of history (probably pro Russian)

      Joke.

  • +13

    Whats with all these troll posts lately? Are people really that bored?

    • +1

      Seems that way. I first just assumed it was SlavOz at it again.

    • OzRant.

  • +8

    Why can’t we have both?
    The stats at my work show that there is higher output when staff are WFH, this has been consistently so over the last two or so years since the first covid lockdown.
    We are now in a hybrid situation where we can WFH some days and from the office others. We are free to attend the office 100% of the time if we wish.
    Personally I find a balance is good. At home it is heads down, bottoms up. I make the most of having no distractions from colleagues.
    If staff are not as productive when WFH, then that should be appropriately managed, the same as it would be for staff attending the office.

    • Yep, I agree with this and it has been my experience as well.

      A balance is the ideal, IMO. I plan my weeks around my schedule and on the days I need to get stuff done I will WFH with minimal distractions. The other is if my day is jam-packed with Teams meetings, then I will WFH as there is no point going into the office and sitting at my desk with headphones on all day.

      Thankfully our company will maintain the flexible/hybrid working model moving forward. It just has to be discussed and agreed with your line manager.

    • High productivity for professionals yes. It is when baristas want to work from home like it is a serious career then it becomes a problem.

      Don't forget there is a lot of commercial landlords who put in a big investment into property.

      Landlords just don't get there will be an adjustment period. Size of offices will shrink but you'll have more tenants. Plus infrastructure can't cope with everyone heading into hubs.

  • +9

    Amazing that you are posting you aren't able to be productive at home.
    I completely agree with your assessment you would be vulnerable to outsourcing.

    I don't think it is widely applicable, however.

  • Frankly many people I know were WFH, regularly, even before Covid. It is about deliverables and ensuring you are flexible. As long as you are available when required, and hit the marks, nobody cares of you pop out during the day for a couple of hours; particularly if you are available on your phone. Obviously some jobs do require you to be in-person; but there are plenty that don’t. If you job can be done by someone, more cheaply, overseas then your boss is, already, looking. You have to prove you are worth every dollar.

  • +2

    His PFP says it all.

  • +1

    Trololololol…

  • +3

    Outsourcing overseas isn’t quite what you think it is these days. Sure there might once have been a time when outsourcing was a sustainable and cheap way of getting things done, but I think you’ll find a lot of companies that did that ended up returning to onshore staffing, with many having paid a hefty price to learn that lesson.

    A common scenario I hear of these days is companies (even govt) outsourcing a major project only to find budget and timelines getting nuked (especially the longer a project has gone for). By then it’s often too late to pivot back to local talent as the growth of domain expertise has now been kept to ransom by the offshore entities.

    Too many times it ends up being a sunk cost and a write off, or the company goes through a painful period of rebuilding onshore, in-house staff, further pushing out the project’s timeline.

    So no, employers are no longer in any position to simply say WFH vs outsourced.

    • Even six years ago a bank I worked for was nearshoring their workforce out of India.

      The escalating pay and investment wasn't worth it. India was nice when there was more talent than there was jobs. Not anymore.

      It is like Philippines call centres. Fine balance between being more responsive vs offending your customers.

  • +3

    You missed the biggest issue with WFH…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW3lhfVpLL4

  • If I wasn't productive when I was WFH they'd replace me with someone who was, not outsource my role.

    Most of the jobs in the company I work for certainly aren't going overseas, our contracts with our clients state their data cannot be accessed internationally.

    What has changed is in recruiting. We are seeing an increase in the number of managers willing to advertise roles across multiple states or in regional locations. With the exception of WA that is, noone wants to deal with the timezone difference it seems.

  • +9

    I started a new job that is 100% remote right in the middle of delta. My performance is measured by the number of hours I bill directly against clients, and the 360 survey/review that happens at every critical project milestone. The people in my space will only go into the office for social banter , team lunch and dinner (paid for by work ) once a month. I also happen to be a dad for the first time recently. WFH allowed me to slay all my work performance targets , earn multiple promotions (during peak covid), work on my own schedule (handful of meeting during work hours, and then do all my builds when my daughter is asleep), AND not miss a single minute with my daughter AND maintain work life balance.

  • +1

    To the OP, really not sure what your agenda is. Not all jobs are WFH compatible, true. By the way, I’m someone that troubleshoots and fixes errors made by the offshore team. I’m also the person responsible in assessing what can be brought back onshore/insource to ensure we gain efficiency and control on our deliverables.

  • +1

    OP you're in the wrong section of the internet to try to explain that wfh is not the change that everyone is hoping for. I'll be one of the few that agree with what you're trying to say.

    Wfh is unproductive, costly and restricts the way companies can manage, train, cross train and combine roles to be efficient.

    I've already experienced 2 friends who have had their roles made redundant because of people not wanting to return to the office and the company happily moved jobs overseas where people are happy to comply and for a much cheaper rate.

    It's been hard enough to be a competitive business on Australia with the high pay rates and worker benefits that we have. Now with the entitled wfh expectations we will see many more companies using it as an excuse to either let people go and replace them with overseas applicants or move the role overseas.

  • +1

    You can't fight the inevitable

    • The inevitable being that desk jobs go the way of manufacturing and move overseas where labour is cheap and plentiful?

      • Yep, and we may as well enjoy the flexibility while we still can. Go back to the office if you prefer, but bosses aren't stupid - they know wfh is a thing now whether you personally wfh or not. If offshoring is inevitable, then it won't matter if we wfh or go to the office now.

      • To some extent, absolutely

  • I find WFH way more productive. I have started going back into the office 1-2 days per week, but don’t get half as much done as when working from home.

    When working at home i find it is distraction free, where as in the office I am constantly being interrupted by others, I tend to have longer breaks as there are people to catch up with and I waste time commuting.

    The same is true for my team, I have seen their productivity increase since working from home.

    I would think most people know what works for them, and if they find they get distracted at home then returning to the office is the right choice but it is not for everyone.

    Interestingly I did see one of my teams performance dip, and they live in a share house.

  • +1

    Hilarity of this thread is nobody identifies what the hell they even work in.

  • +5

    OP is a butt hurt employer who cant seem to hire anyone since WFH hybrid role is pretty much a requirement these days.. so he is on here venting off against 99 percent of people who like WFH

  • WFH and outsourcing are not substitutes of eachother. The latter is more than remote working and productivity - its talent pipeline (some geographies have substantially larger volumes of talent/newly qualified people entering the workforce each year than Aus), costs (not limited to labour), extensions of operational hours via timezone differences and partnership benefits…

  • Slightly off-topic, but those who are fully/mostly WFH - did you actively seek out a fully WFH role when job hunting?
    Asking as it's very hard to tell from job ads (on LinkedIn/Seek etc.) how flexible a role is in terms of WFH. Most ads say "hybrid" or "flexible" working conditions which could mean anything - e.g. it could just mean 4 mandatory office days/1 day WFH for example. Do most people just apply to everything and ask during interview?

    • My employer states 'hybrid' on job ads. This could mean WFH full time or only a couple of days a week. It depends on the role but you should be able to confirm that with hiring manager / recruiter.

  • My productivity at home VS office is the same, so it doesn't matter. But with that said, I agree that the future trend especially with globalisation which is unstoppable, this will open up opportunities for company to outsource employees from other countries with lower wages.

    Why wouldn't you pay a programmer who can do the same job at half the wage? It's a no brainer. So Aussies would either have to stay competitive or die just like car manufacturers.

    • Programming work was already being outsourced before COVID.

  • +5

    You work in commercial real estate, don’t you?

    It’s like those ‘study finds workers looking forward to returning to office’*

    *study funded by JLL/KnightFrank/Lend Lease et al

    • Exactly this. Was plenty of propaganda from several bank CEOs as well "our employees WANT to return, miss the comraderie, bouncing ideas around" etc etc BS.

      All because they have a big empty building/offices with another 15 years lease to run and love the corpo micro management mid tier supervisors "tO mAkE SuRe pRodUctIviTy iS hIgH"

  • WFH is here to stay for sure. Companies save money from electricity bill and other up keeps. They can expand without investing in facilities. Many companies now have hybrid arrangement like 2 days in/3 days WFH. Some are even doing 8 day fortnight i.e 4 day week (still 38 hrs week, 9.5hr day).

  • +7

    What's with the fear mongering? You sound like someone heavily invested in commercial real estate or a manager that is struggling to justify their place in the company.

  • +1

    I'm sure WFH is suitable in many situations. I doubt it will work in all situations for a long time yet. We are a professional services firm dealing directly with the public in a regional area. A decent % of clients have known our staff for 10-20+ years and want face to face. More and more go electronic each year, but plenty haven't. There is also a fair % that don't zoom etc, even some younger/middle aged clients don't use pc's/laptops or even mobiles apart from calls/sms/maps. If we don't give them the service they expect, they will feel like 'just a number' and leave. These clients will always need their work to be done, so when other forum 'experts' suggest we just cut them off, that is stupid and arrogant, because they still have to get their work done and this doesn't solve the issue.
    Also, when you are regularly training up new staff because people get pregnant or move away for the 'big money', being based in an office now, I'm certain it would be much harder when everyone is WFH. I agree that working in the office is not always efficient either, so there has to be a compromise and/or sweet spot for each situation.
    To put it in context, we didn't have to deal with the extended lock downs that other states had to adapt to. So there's that too.

    • Agreed. It definitely works better for some roles than others. For me its close to perfect.

  • Op , if they honestly have to worry about that.. and if you as an employee have to worry about that.. then the employer/employee relationship is wrong…not a good fit.

    It seems there's no trust or even confidence in the trust that you have.

  • +6

    You see the Trump avatar and you already start bracing yourself before reading.

  • As for ol' mate and everyone else that brings up the death of the car industry, for any argument, I don't know you so nothing personal.
    If this is somehow out of context, so be it, but I have read that most, if not all, car manufacturers receive significant government subsidies regardless of which country they are based in and if this was withdrawn, many of those would also collapse. So it comes down to how important that industry is and how much a government wants to keep it local.
    Doesn't help in Australia when labour was higher than in so many other countries, I believe. We personally want to get paid a 'fair wage' but screw everyone else whose wages form part of the cost of something we want to buy. We'd rather pay some foreigner $20/wk to live off rice and potatoes thanks. Then we had to import so many components, delivery costs and it is hard to get the same economies of scale when your local market and/or production levels are 1/10th or 1/20th or worse, than some of the overseas competitors.
    In addition to that, the government has let in so may cheap crappy imports over the years and many consumers are only worried about price instead of reliability.
    Early Hyundai, Rio, Daewoo, Lada, Great Wall, LDV, Ssangyong after they changed their original engine provider, the early Jeep's and others including some European stuff (yes, some locals left a bad taste too) - some of them are / were complete garbage and your resale values crashed as soon as you bought them, but some people will never understand that a car is rarely considered an investment, or the life time costs of ownership.
    For sure, in the end the local manufacturers didn't help themselves when they didn't move with the market to embrace SUV's and didn't include all of the fancy wanky extras.
    Automatic windscreen wipers please because I'm too stupid or too lazy to flick my finger and turn them on myself.

  • +2

    Not against WFH at all but as someone over the years who's had their share of WFH abusers colleagues it's certainly annoying enough if you're unlucky enough to have too many at one time.

  • +2

    I'm not asking for full time work from home, I genuinely like the people I work with and like seeing them. Work aren't asking for full time in the office, they do want us in the office sometimes to connect with the people we work with.

    Working in the office is about building and maintaining relationships for us. It's the same for everyone too, right up to the CEO. They've seen we can work from home, but some people struggle without the connection. We're doing our best to stack our meetings on our office days, as they're not particularly productive days, it's much easier to focus at home. Plus it's meant to be about the interactions.

    I asked for a payrise while working from home and the committee reviewed it and agreed to it. My evaluations are still glowing. I still get the higher bonus, which is based on my performance. The amount of work I get done is only ever brought up in a positive manner.

    If you aren't able to work effectively at home, or without someone constantly watching you, then yes, you should really be working in the office. The people I work with just get in and get things done and don't need a babysitter. Management in my last few roles has been about handling things like leave requests, letting us know what we're working on next, as a middleperson between us and upper management.

  • +1

    My boss is from a different state and we were hotdesking before covid so never really had any typical office environment.
    Been WFH for 2.5 years and it'd be pointless travelling 3 hours a day to go back to what I used to do.

  • I predicted that rural properties will boom at the expense of inner city properties which happened much faster than I expected and for a different reason. My guess was that driverless vehicles and electric robo taxis will take the pain out of commuting longer distances for work and people will live further from the CBD.
    Instead it was a pandemic, not driverless cars, that pushed us closer to this outcome.

  • +1

    I was planning to spend one day in the office next week (first this year) for a department meeting where i present. Then i am told there is a limit of 6 people in one room so i might need to dial in. What's the point of going in for a meeting only to be asked to dial in remotely from a closed office to be covid safe?

  • Either you losers come to work or I'm paying a Filipino
    virtual assistant $3.25US/hr to do essentially the same work you do.

    • Can you give more info here? For $3.25, I would like to give it a go.

    • +1

      Entry level shit kicker role, go for it. Offshoring those has been the case for 15 years.

      Any role with any actual work involved? Good luck!

      I previously worked for a company (not Telstra) that offshored an entire division to save some $$$. 3 years later they brought it all back as it was a cluster (profanity), they lost all their local talent and had to start fresh, and the entire saga COST MORE than just keeping it onshore.

  • +13

    work from home: work for 4 hours, bum around for 4 hours

    work from office: work for 4 hours, pretend to be busy for the other 4 hours. Lose 1 to 2 hours a day commuting

    Lets be honest, a vast majority of people just cannot perform for 7.5 hours a day.

Login or Join to leave a comment