Employer Forcing to Work in Office against Govt. Workplace Order (VIC)

anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 18:30

May be they are not aware of it, but according to "Pandemic (Workplace) Order (No.10)" at https://www.health.vic.gov.au/covid-19/workplace-order, any facility worker over the age of 18, must not attend office if they have not had their booster shot yet.

They said as long as you are vaccinated, you have to come in 2 days a week, or face termination.

"The Workplace Order (No. 10) commenced at 11:59pm on 12 July 2022 and ends at 11:59pm on 12 October 2022."

Here's where I need you guys help. I am going to confront them tomorrow, but don't want to look like a tool if I am wrong.

I've spoken to few friends and no one else seems to know about this order.

The document is a bit confusing, and has a lot of terms I don't understand, but from what I gather, ANY office worker who is 18+, has not had a booster, has not has a 2nd dose in last 3 months and 14 days, and has not had covid in last 4 months, MUST NOT attend the office. (Few other exception which I'll leave out, as they won't apply to most).

The employer is a private company, but the document says "this Order requires certain regulated employers to not permit workers to work outside their ordinary place of residence unless the worker is under 18 years of age and is fully vaccinated, or the worker is 18 years or over and is fully vaccinated (boosted), or an excepted person or unless an exception applies to the worker", but on Page 18, Division 2 – Facility workers, it sounds like anyone working in an office is not allowed if those conditions are met.

Do I have leg to stand on, or does my private company doesn't need to follow this order?

Thanks.

Education & Work

Comments

  • Switchblade88 on 01/08/2022 - 18:39
    +6

    A lot of this applies to 'certain regulated employers'. Are you sure you're one of those categories? You didn't say your job title nor employer category.

    • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 19:02
      -2

      Ah missed that. I work in Data processing.

  • Realsteel on 01/08/2022 - 18:41
    +6

    https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/how-we-work-current-restr…

    Workers in some sectors must be vaccinated to work outside their home, unless an exception applies.

    This applies to workers and contractors in:

    residential care
    aged care,
    disability care,
    healthcare,
    custodial services
    emergency services
    specialist school facilities that are registered for the main purpose of providing instruction for students with a disability.
    In these settings, to work outside the home, workers:

    18 years or over require three COVID-19 vaccine doses
    under the age of 18 years require two doses (or one dose of a single dose vaccine).

    • Realsteel on 01/08/2022 - 18:44
      +3

      Typically just the above industries. Barring that, if the employer says 5 days in the office, you have the following options;

      • do as employer wants
      • consider your options which may involve finding another employer (or trying to negotiate with current employer stating your reasons for not wanting/being able to come into office)
    • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 19:04

      Thanks, makes sense now.

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 01/08/2022 - 18:43

    What’s stopping your workmate from declaring they are quad vaccined even if they aren’t?

    • JimmyF on 01/08/2022 - 19:11

      Quad is only open to 30+

      If the gov declares a quad vac is required to be 'fully' vaccinated, then yes they can.

    • core101 on 02/08/2022 - 00:59

      If Medicare form IM017 is not in place, the state gov will be able to verify declaration.

  • Ocker on 01/08/2022 - 18:57
    +7

    Ring your Union

    • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 19:11
      -7

      Brave of you to think they allow unions.

      • havebeerbelywillsumo on 01/08/2022 - 19:47
        +3

        "Brave"????….do you mean "Silly" or Presumptuous or ???? (sadly the anonynegger is strong on this thread.)

      • Vote for Pedro on 01/08/2022 - 20:59
        +7

        They don’t get to choose. If you and all your colleagues are members you have strength. Otherwise, you rely on OzBargain.

  • JimmyF on 01/08/2022 - 19:10
    +9

    Do I have leg to stand on, or does my private company doesn't need to follow this order?

    I'm guessing this has nothing to do with covid/vax/boosters and everything to do with you wanting to WFH instead.

    They said as long as you are vaccinated, you have to come in 2 days a week, or face termination.

    You are only postponing returning to the office, so get your booster. Come 13 October 2022 and the order you reference will have ended. Which is only 73 days away.

    • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 19:14
      +2

      Yes first point is true. I don't like wasting money and time on commuting everyday, preparing lunch, ironing my shirt/pants, and all the other useless stuff.
      Second point is also true, but I'll rather do that with another company which is not being too authoritarian.

      • JimmyF on 01/08/2022 - 19:23
        +4

        but I'll rather do that with another company which is not being too authoritarian.

        Rather do what? Sorry I'm confused. So you would rather work for another company that demands you come into the office from the start rather than the company you are currently working for telling you the same?

        WFH was only a temp thing in most businesses. It was going to come to an end at some point. So either head in a couple of days a week or find a new company that allows WFH full time.

        (Didn't neg you BTW)

        • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 20:44
          +7

          The problem isn't going to work, it's the way they are being authoritarian about it. We've been working overtime on average of 2 hours everyday for last 2 years during lockdown, some days even 4 hours, even logged in on weekends, without getting extra pay for those hours. Now that we are asking for flexibility, they treating people as disposables.

          Yes it was always going to come to an end, but why does it have to? Why can't we work from home permanently, save money, and go in once or twice a fortnight, if there's meeting or training sessions etc that can not be done on teams. People save time, money, and it's good for the company as well as they can save money on renting/electricity bills. What is the reason for going in? Because they don't trust you will work from home effectively, when the truth is that most people work more effectively and less distracted. I just don't understand the logic.

          • morse on 01/08/2022 - 20:51
            +7

            @anonymous01:

            the way they are being authoritarian about it

            It’s your workplace. It’s not a democracy (unless you’re a gov employee and even that’s complicated).

            We've been working overtime on average of 2 hours everyday for last 2 years during lockdown, some days even 4 hours, even logged in on weekends, without getting extra pay for those hours.

            That sounds terrible. If you’re going to have an issue, make that’s your issue and don’t get it muddled with the WFH stuff.

            Why can't we work from home permanently, save money, and go in once or twice a fortnight, if there's meeting or training sessions etc that can not be done on teams. People save time, money, and it's good for the company as well as they can save money on renting/electricity bills.

            You’re right. But if you protest it’s likely to backfire. If it was me I’d lay low for a bit and then negotiate some WFH.

          • Vote for Pedro on 01/08/2022 - 21:04
            +7

            @anonymous01: Lets talk about unions again. Recently had to do a presentation to an organisation with high union membership. An organisation that is mostly corporate work. Guess what they have. A once a month in office rule for various teams to connect. Everyone is happy except a few managers stuck in the 80’s.

            I asked some workers i connected with later how they achieved this and basically they called the union to facilitate an open dialogue with the employer that involved some tough discussions on expectations and goal setting and how performance would be measured and managed.

            Unions aren’t just burly middle aged blokes threatening to strike. Most are now experienced workplace change consultants and mediators.

          • cookie2 on 01/08/2022 - 21:11
            +3

            @anonymous01: I get but. But you're not going to change your workplace and upper level management values and opinions. Consider moving somewhere that will offer you some flexibility that you're after.

          • lunchbox99 on 01/08/2022 - 21:40
            +1

            @anonymous01: Ok, I'll bite. It's because despite what socially inept introverts on websites will tell you, most work activity involves interactions with other humans at some time. Also despite what they claim, interaction by phone, email and zoom is not as efficient or as effective for those interactions nor for the management of staff.

            I allow my staff to WFH 2 days a week where appropriate plus additional ad hoc days (eg they have a tradie coming, or minor illness). I do not think 100% WFH is as effective for my staff and would not allow them to do it.

            • [Deactivated] on 01/08/2022 - 23:23
              +1

              @lunchbox99: Yes, because making people commuting 2 hours a day only because their micromanaging boss does not trust them and feeling lonely is so good for morale.

              • lunchbox99 on 01/08/2022 - 23:40
                +4

                @[Deactivated]: Lots of workers can’t be trusted. Lots of people slack off when working from home. But that was only a small component of my comment. People work better together in person. Not many jobs are entirely solitary.

                I think ultimately people will have hybrid working patterns. Some ability to work at home, but a greater onsite presence that the last 2 years.

                Let’s see how brave everyone is with demanding WFH with rising costs of living and a return to normal unemployment rates.

                • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2022 - 02:51
                  -1

                  @lunchbox99: WFH is already a major factor in changing employment in USA and it's coming to Australia too, if it's not already here. No one wants waste hours of life and pay premium just so their clueless micromanager can talk to them face to face and watch over the shoulder what they do at work. Business class travel is at 1/4th of pre-Covid levels and unlikely ever reaches that level again, next business might start realizing that they can actually save not so small money on office rent too.. It has already started, CBDs are deserted on work days.

                  • lunchbox99 on 02/08/2022 - 07:10
                    +1

                    @[Deactivated]: You might be right, or it may be a product of the tight job market where employers are currently less inclined to force people. Things have not returned to normal yet - labour market, supply chains, inflation, etc. It may take quite some time like end of 2023 or even longer. We will have to see.

                    The communication benefits are not just to the manager. It’s also between everyone else, within the team and across teams. Humans are social creatures and while electronic communication is fine for many interactions, it is no substitute for face to face discussion. Electronic comms are currently very weak at the non-verbal components of communication (body language etc).

                    As I said.I allow my staff to WFH and I enjoy doing it myself. For certain tasks (particularly solo efforts) it’s no different to on-site, but my view is that it is inferior for a whole range of other interactions.

                  • JimmyF on 02/08/2022 - 09:13

                    @[Deactivated]:

                    WFH is already a major factor in changing employment in USA and it's coming to Australia too

                    LOL WFH is over in the USA…. Companies are calling staff back into the office. Employees are kicking and screaming just like you are.

                    • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2022 - 15:08
                      +1

                      @JimmyF: Kicking and screaming? You wish.

                      The company I work for, fairly large corporation, did internal poll and 90% people said they want work remotely. And company agreed to that, you can choose whether you work from home full time or not. Don't know why, maybe because they had 20% boost in productivity of remote staff over two years of Covid isolation?

          • dufflover on 01/08/2022 - 23:38

            @anonymous01:

            Now that we are asking for flexibility, they treating people as disposables.

            If they think they can replace people easily, then you basically are.

      • mhz on 02/08/2022 - 08:59
        +7

        Then find another job! It just sounds like you don't want to work in an office which is all well and good, but your employer has every right to ask its employees to come back to the office. Mandates have been scrapped for most office environments now and given you have said you work in a data processing job I would say that your workplace is one of the places where the mandates have been scrapped. Suck it up or find another job, those are your options!

        • lunchbox99 on 02/08/2022 - 09:34
          +3

          I find it odd that people have developed a mindset where apparently your employer supposedly has no say in how you work. Frankly it's just bizarre.

          If your employer asks you to work onsite, then you work onsite or you leave. Simple as that, unless the job market gives employees some leverage. And any leverage will not last forever.

          • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2022 - 16:56
            -4

            @lunchbox99: The problem is not whether employer can have a say but whether it's a reasonable request or not. In most cases, yours included, the only reason for employee to be in the office is because their manager is feeling lonely. That is NOT a reason for forcing people to come to office, especially if you can't prove that their work from home is somehow less productive.

            • lunchbox99 on 02/08/2022 - 17:09
              +3

              @[Deactivated]: The employer doesn't have to prove anything. If you don't like it leave. If the job market has spoken and they can't retain or recruit employees as a result, then they will either change their policy or go broke. I suspect in the long term many more people will be returning to onsite work.

              I also do not agree that the request is due to lonely managers. I think WFH is better in some ways and worse in other ways, which is why I think hybrid working arrangements are more likely to become more common.

              • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2022 - 17:25

                @lunchbox99:

                The employer doesn't have to prove anything. If you don't like it leave.

                Of course the don't need to. But next time someone asks one of your employees why they're in the office and the answer will be "because lunchbox99 wants it" you have employee that does not have loyalty anymore. And they will leave, or, worse, they will be working just enough to not be fired and nothing you would be able to do about it, because you can't quantify employee's work other than "they're in the office and look busy".

                I also do not agree that the request is due to lonely managers. I think WFH is better in some ways and worse in other ways, which is why I think hybrid working arrangements are more likely to become more common.

                Nope they won't. People who don't go office don't need live anywhere close to it and making them come to office because you could not be bothered push that Zoom button will only make them leave faster.

                Your work practices were killed by NBN and Covid, it's you who need to adapt or go broke. Employees will always find someone more reasonable to work for.

                • lunchbox99 on 03/08/2022 - 07:24
                  +2

                  @[Deactivated]: Let’s see how long they refuse when they have bills to pay. As I said, low unemployment rates are giving people some bargaining power at the moment. Do not make the mistake of thinking that power will last forever.

                  • [Deactivated] on 03/08/2022 - 15:44
                    -1

                    @lunchbox99: You're one of those employers who think that they're doing some charity work hiring people. You don't, they're making you money and you pay them less than they making you. Let's see how long you business survives without people that don't want to work for you.

                    • lunchbox99 on 03/08/2022 - 16:48
                      +1

                      @[Deactivated]: I have said multiple times that I allow my staff to WFH at least 2 days a week. If you think that makes me an ogre then I guess I will have to cry myself to sleep. Lol

                • mhz on 04/08/2022 - 08:50

                  @[Deactivated]: @DainB

                  While the landscape may have changed due to COVID and people got comfortable working from home, it doesn't mean the employer is obligated in any way to maintain the covid wfh policies of the past. If you don't like being told to come back to the office, then find another job that does. Just because you live far away from the office, really isn't a good enough excuse. I really don't understand the entitled view that a lot of employees seem to have suddenly adopted.

                  On the other hand though, given how good the job market is at the moment, you would be somewhat silly as an employer to not offer some flexibility in enabling your employees to work some days from home.

                  • [Deactivated] on 04/08/2022 - 16:58

                    @mhz: Employers needs attract best people they can get for given money. If those best people want work from home employer will lose to competitors who offer that. And majority of people do want to work from home. So, yeah, sure, they're not obligated but if they won't follow market demands they will miss out.

                    Also there's nothing entitled about it. If Covid demonstrated that this particular job can be done remotely without much impact, or often even improvement of productivity, and then employer/manager demands everyone go back to office that request can be considered not reasonable. Basically all they do is saying "no reason, because I want it so". And no one want work for micromanaging tyrants. So yes, people should leave and let that business die slow and horrible death.

    • core101 on 02/08/2022 - 00:36

      Just before order no. 10 expires, order No. 11 will be rolled out, then election, then 12, 13, 14, etc.

  • iNeed2Pee on 01/08/2022 - 19:21
    -2

    Just get the booster.

      • cookie2 on 01/08/2022 - 21:15
        -5

        Can everyone stop neggin ppl for mentioning they don't want to get another shot? Seriously it's a little ridiculous and it's personal too.

        • morse on 02/08/2022 - 03:54

          it's personal too.

          Then no need to share this information with strangers on the internet.

      • JimmyF on 01/08/2022 - 21:50
        +3

        I am not anti-vaxer, but
        I rather take that chance.

        Errr 'taking' a chance is 100% an anti-vaxer…..

        • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 21:53
          +4

          Then why would I get the first two shots?

          • lunchbox99 on 01/08/2022 - 23:43
            -2

            @anonymous01: Not wanting to be vaxxed again is literally the definition of being anti vaccination. I’m talking text book dictionary definition.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/08/2022 - 17:45
              -1

              @lunchbox99: Not wanting be vaccinated with same stuff that did not work in the past and known to not work in the present is a definition of "learning from your mistakes".

              • lunchbox99 on 03/08/2022 - 11:14

                @[Deactivated]: It does work, however immunity does not last forever and in this case it doesn't last long at all.

                If you want to blame anything, blame your immune system since people with naturally acquired immunity can be re-infected too.

                • [Deactivated] on 03/08/2022 - 15:42

                  @lunchbox99: Vaccines do not produce long term immunity, they're creating immune response to vaccine. That is very different from natural immunity from infection, which is long term immunity on a many more levels.

                  • lunchbox99 on 09/08/2022 - 09:13

                    @[Deactivated]: Lol, what a load of nonsense. Go take an immunology class then come back and we can discuss like adults.

                • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 08:46

                  @lunchbox99: Really, so it's not Pfizer's fault for developing a half-ass vaccine in 7 months? (for reference, most vaccines take 10 years to make, the fastest one previously was 4 years).

                  There is just no way to fit decades of work into a few months, so corners must have been cut. Most outlets have even had to change the definition of vaccines to reflect how poorly the Covid vax is performing.

                  It's not our body's faults. Plenty of other vaccines worked fine at preventing infection or serious illness permanently after just 1 or 2 doses. This thing needs to be taken every 3 months and even then it hardly makes a noticeable difference.

                  If you bought the vax from Harvey Norman, you'd be entitled to refund under Australian law. It's completely not as advertised.

                  • lunchbox99 on 09/08/2022 - 09:12

                    @SlavOz: Nice way to demonstrate you know nothing about vaccine development. Well done.

                  • 01001101 01000010 on 09/08/2022 - 09:40

                    @SlavOz: @SlavOz, A write-up from an infectious diseases specialist and professor at the University of Virginia. Long story short, there is more to the story than you're stating.

                    COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time – but are these game-changers safe?

                    • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 11:24

                      @01001101 01000010: What about long term human trials and testing? These typically need to be done for at least a year or more to get new drugs approved.

                      Did the special technology allow them to slow down time and conduct a year's worth of testing in a few months?

                      • 01001101 01000010 on 09/08/2022 - 11:30

                        @SlavOz: Here is an extra article that will answer your question. Worth a read to dispel some of the misinformation you have picked up along the way.

                        All told, the vaccine will have been tested on almost five times as many volunteers as is usually required for licensing a vaccine.
                        https://theconversation.com/oxford-scientists-how-we-develop…

                        • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 11:50

                          @01001101 01000010: Are you familiar with the law of diminishing returns? There's only so much that can be done in a certain period of time. It doesn't matter how much money or people you throw at it, a house can't be built in 3 weeks. Concrete takes time to dry. The job site can only accommodate so many trucks or cranes. Screws need to be precisely nailed and measured. Sure you can speed it up but at some point you reach counter-productivity as all the resources and people get in the way of each other.

                          Every drug is important, as were all the previous vaccines we developed. We needed to get these out as quickly as possible too. But where do you think the long-term medical testing process came from? It was in place for a reason. If it was possible or safe to combine steps simultaneously, we would've adjusted medical trials to reflect this so we could get drugs out sooner. This certainly would've been in the interest of pharma companies and even governments, but I suspect there's a reason it was never done.

                          • 01001101 01000010 on 09/08/2022 - 12:17

                            @SlavOz:

                            Are you familiar with the law of diminishing returns?

                            Yes, I am.

                            a house can't be built in 3 weeks.

                            I also know that building a house is not vaccine development and is an irrelevant comparison.

                            You have been provided with two reputable sources that answer your questions. It appears that you are just looking for someone to respond so you can parrot your same talking points.

                            • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 12:20

                              @01001101 01000010:

                              I also know that building a house is not vaccine development

                              You are correct. Developing a vaccine is significantly harder and more complicated than building a house. Same rule applies. The law of diminishing returns is universal.

                              You have been provided with two reputable sources

                              The Conversation is not a reputable source, it's a partisan thinktank.

                              • 01001101 01000010 on 09/08/2022 - 12:30

                                @SlavOz:

                                The Conversation is not a reputable source, it's a partisan thinktank.

                                I disagree and am surprised as you have linked to it a number of times yourself.

                                You are correct. Developing a vaccine is significantly harder and more complicated than building a house. Same rule applies. The law of diminishing returns is universal.

                                I think the point is that you are woefully underqualified to understand vaccine development and are unwilling to look at sources that explain it in an accessible way, combined with your continued doubling down on these irrelevant comparisons so that you can use it to argue the point is disingenuous.

                                • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 12:39

                                  @01001101 01000010: Dude, that article was written by two 20s/30s college students.

                                  That hardly makes them experts on the matter. A decision to reverse decades of medical standards would likely rest with the top, top experts in the field.

                                  I think you're a little too eager to believe something just because you read it on the internet.

                                  • 01001101 01000010 on 09/08/2022 - 12:52

                                    @SlavOz:

                                    Dude, that article was written by two 20s/30s college students.

                                    You're lying.

                                    William A. Petri Jr., M.D., Ph.D - Is the Wade Hampton Frost Professor of Medicine and Vice Chair for Research of the Department of Medicine, and Professor of Medicine, Microbiology, Immunology and Cancer Biology, and Pathology, Medicine: Infectious Diseases and International Health, Medicine: Infectious Diseases and International Health. At the University of Virginia

                                    Tonia Thomas - DPhil Physiology Anatomy & Genetics - University of Oxford.

                                    That hardly makes them experts on the matter.

                                    They are considered experts in their fields.

                                    • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 12:58

                                      @01001101 01000010:

                                      They are considered experts in their fields

                                      No, they're paid writers in a partnership between The Conervsation and the University of Oxford. It says it right in the article.

                                      This is hardly some unanimous or diverse forum of medical enlightenment.

                                      • 01001101 01000010 on 09/08/2022 - 13:06

                                        @SlavOz:

                                        No, they're paid writers in a partnership between The Conervsation and the University of Oxford. It says it right in the article.

                                        Here is their disclosure statement:
                                        Disclosure statement
                                        The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

                                        Can you point me to where it says there is a paid partnership?

                                        This is hardly some unanimous or diverse forum of medical enlightenment.

                                        However, the articles are written by experts in their fields for consumption by the public.

                                        • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 13:58

                                          @01001101 01000010: Right under that:

                                          Partnerships

                                          University of Oxford provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

                                          • 01001101 01000010 on 09/08/2022 - 14:08

                                            @SlavOz: Aaah, I missed that bit. Still doesn't mean that the there is an issue with the content.

                                            I would encourage anyone who is interested in having a read of: https://theconversation.com/au/who-we-are

                                            Everything you read here is created by academics and journalists working together, supported by a team of digital technology experts. Our professional editors turn knowledge and insights from academics into easy-to-read articles, and make them accessible to readers like you.
                                            All our work is free to read and free to republish under Creative Commons. We do this as a not-for-profit company guided by a clear purpose=> to provide access to quality explanatory journalism essential for healthy democracy.
                                            We place a high value on trust. All authors and editors sign up to our Editorial Charter. Contributors must abide by our Community Standards. We only allow authors to write on subjects on which they have expertise. Potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed.

                                  • lunchbox99 on 09/08/2022 - 14:41
                                    +1

                                    @SlavOz: You are making false equivalences here.

                                    mRNA vaccines are an entirely different way to make vaccines. It is specifically designed to be more rapid than creating and purifying viral proteins, or making attenuated virus.

                                    The difficulty of the process was perfecting the delivery of the viral protein mRNA into the cell, which was researched over a long period between (at least) 1989 and when the first mRNA vaccine was approved. Subsequent retooling of an mRNA vaccine to generate a new viral protein is relatively easy compared to traditional vaccines.

                                    • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 15:12

                                      @lunchbox99: So we got lucky with a virus that suddenly created a need for something we've been working on for decades?

                                      I bet big pharma was just thrilled to hear that.

                                      • lunchbox99 on 09/08/2022 - 16:24

                                        @SlavOz: Well that is a very cynical way of viewing the world. An alternative view is that we were incredibly fortunate to have an emerging technology capable of preventing the death of millions of people by bringing a new vaccine into use much faster than previous methods.

                                        The problem is that we have no control experiment, so you don't see how many people could be dead right now if not for being vaccinated. I guess a cynic would believe that it made no difference at all.

                                        • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 16:48

                                          @lunchbox99: I would say my view is somewhat cynical but also of a realist. You need to intentionally ignore reality to think there's nothing suspicious about the most corrupt and greedy industry of all time suddenly quadrupling their profits from a perfectly timed pandemic and being given legal immunity from any outcomes.

                                          I would be much less sceptical had this product been put on the market and privately advertised by the manufacturer rather than arbitrarily forced onto everyone by legal, physical, and emotional duress. Ditto had we not raised taxes on the working class so we could subsidise mega corporations. You lose me at that part no matter how many times you tell me it's just science.

  • bobbified on 01/08/2022 - 19:32
    +6

    Would've been funnier if you went up to your employer, guns blazing, going "I know ma rights!"

    And then walked out with your tail between your legs!🤣

    • No on 01/08/2022 - 19:46

      AM I BEING DETAINED?

    • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 20:47
      +1

      Lucky I asked! LOL.. imagine that.

  • Tee Rex Arms on 01/08/2022 - 20:05
    +10

    Get into work ffs, your days of milking the WFH teet are over.

  • morse on 01/08/2022 - 20:44
    +5

    If you want to keep working from home (presumably because you like it not because you’re scared of COVID). I’d recommend going back in and not making a big deal out of it for a bit. Then after demonstrating your excellent performance and good relationships with your co-workers start negotiating to work some days of the week from home. Unless you have a contract agreement to say you can wfh.

    Basically what I’m saying is, don’t force the issue. Build relationships then ask for it.

    • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 20:50
      +2

      Yes I like it. We did ask, they denied it. Not even one day to work from home was allowed.

      • morse on 01/08/2022 - 20:52
        +2

        Stay on good terms with your line manager. Start looking for other options.

        • anonymous01 on 01/08/2022 - 20:53
          +3

          Oh my manager is awesome, it's the upper management.

          • morse on 01/08/2022 - 21:01
            +2

            @anonymous01: My recommendation would be just to roll with it for a bit. Don’t stick your neck out. But also no need to be loyal.

      • Quantumcat on 02/08/2022 - 07:20
        +3

        Then get along with people so you'll have references, and look for another job

  • BillyStm on 02/08/2022 - 08:52
    +4

    You'll likely find that whilst businesses/companies have ongoing leases they will request staff to work from office, as they near the end of the leases they may look at options to downsize office space etc and that's where a more favourable move to WFH arrangement may come into play.

    That being said it's hardly an authoritarian approach asking someone to do their job as they had signed up for when they started…

    I get it WFH is great and has lots of benefits to the employee…not so many for the employer so if they can get even a 2-3% productivity increase by bringing their staff back to the office they will do that.

  • pencilhead on 02/08/2022 - 09:58
    +6

    I'd stop doing unpaid overtime for a start. if asked why,, you can say you don't have enough time with the commuting you are doing.
    Aside from that, I'd say it's time to find a new job.

    My employer has done the sums and doesn't want us to come back to the office. They are saving a fortune on rent, heating/cooling, other amenities for staff.

  • Porker on 02/08/2022 - 10:15

    It doesn't seem a good long-term tactic to cause conflict with your boss/management to do something they do want to allow. They want you back in the office, you don't want to go.

    Are your sentiments around not going back into work more important than the income and other work benefits that you may eventually lose (ie. dismissed)?

  • lew380 on 02/08/2022 - 11:32
    -2

    Ah communism, arguing over nonsensical communist rule trying to send your work mates to the proverbial gulag of unemployment if they don't comply with insanity. Here we go again…

  • jrvb42 on 02/08/2022 - 16:26

    Even if it did apply, the message is to get boosted and attend work or face termination. Simple. Plenty of unemployed waiting to take the jobs of recalcitrant workers.

  • Rayzorback on 03/08/2022 - 06:36

    Looks like the WFH junket is over unfortunately because I’d say you don’t fall under workplace order 10

  • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 09:02

    First rule of COVID in Australia: there are no rules. Government and companies do what they want and everyone agreed to look the other way when it comes to restrictions, mandates, WFH, discrimination etc. It was to each their own discretion, no questions asked. Any rules you've seen written down are for legal coverage only - they rarely apply in practice.

    Eg - discriminating against people with a disability is illegal. So you can't say "I don't allow wheelchairs in my shop". But if someone had a disability that made it untenable to wear a mask, businesses were allowed to refuse entry, even if you had a medical note (not that they should be entitled to ask in the first place).

    I would say focus less on the rules and try to read the room.

      • SlavOz on 09/08/2022 - 09:12

        It's not about respect - it's about following the law. Discrimination on medical grounds is unlawful but unfortunately we still have people in this country who want to undo that precedent.

        What's next, discrimination is allowed on the basis of religion? (nervous laughter).

        • [Deactivated] on 09/08/2022 - 09:41
          +2

          It's all about respect which you obviously know nothing about.

          Lets see now, you grew up in a dysfunctional family, you're ill with auto-immune health issues, and since you were let go by your last employer after making disparaging remarks on LinkedIn (like, what does that & doesn't expect repercussions?), you're unemployable and so you've got a major chip on your shoulder. Oh, and you're morbidly single.

          An attitude change is in order and go crap-post elsewhere.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join