My employer is trying to enforce 60% return to office, insinuating that there will be repercussions for those who don't follow this mandate.
Are your employers also trying to enforce people returning to office? And what are your thoughts/observations from your fellow colleagues?
Edit: I personally don't mind going into the office, but interested to know how others are feeling. Added poll:
Change*
Why not both?
Private companies may beg to differ.
I'd say the same in public sector.
@StephBlanks: it's the same. They reckon that nothing has been mandated but they're forcing people to go back.
I suppose they can't force you, but they could end your employment.
If not, they'll limit your progression
The entitlement is astounding.
Tell that to Elon.
Elon is going to no longer be the richest man on earth after he runs twitter into the ground…
@vid_ghost: He literally can do no wrong with twitter. Either he fixed the cesspit and it continues on as a less vapid and psychotic space, or he terminates it. Either way it’s a massive win for humanity.
They can - as long as they're not breaking any laws. They pay you and can require you to work to their rules and the terms of your contract.
If you didn't agree then look for a job somewhere else.
No forced days in but there is frequent encouragement from management to come into the office. Forced 3 days in seems to be common though from speaking with friends.
Plenty of workplaces with no plans to force workers back to the office though so let management know that WFH is a major decider for you and start looking elsewhere. Vote with your feet.
That's easier said than done.
So many people just say "leave" but it's not that easy.
Mortgages and families mean getting a new job with probation period can be stressful and you may find yourself without a job. Also some people have shares that vest, and a number of other reasons.
It sounds like you want cake and eat it too.
I'm sure someone has made that comment to anyone advocating for any change to workplace relations ever in the history of the world ;)
I guess I just don't work as hard as someone like Elon who shitposts on twitter all day and is the "CEO" of 4 companies.
Agree with this. With the economic uncertainty we're seeing, it's pretty risky to be on a 6 month probation right now.
Not necessarily, depends on industry and what sort of work you do.
@conan2000: lowest unemployment in history at the moment, heaps of people having to take a punt on iffy staff, you could be one of them!
That's easier said than done.
What kind of work negotiation is easier or just as easy to be done than said? Shitposting on ozbargain so your boss will give you what you want?
Although most other businesses also seems to be mandating few days in office.
May need to have the same wfh arrangements (or fixed no of days) discussion with new/prospective employer before you accept, else may end up in same situation.
We all hate going in so we good. We are more productive working from home as well lol and they know it.
Most offices are starting to enforce this, the job market is getting better and better so they know the power is slowly returning to the employer. While most jobs will allow some flexibility everyone I know and work with (in other companies) are about 3 days office 2 days home and employees who are not showing up for the 3 days for whatever reason after a bit some have been told they will need to be in office 5 days - I would like to know but if they say no to 5 days in office what happens, can they be terminated?
So you actually mean the job market is getting worse and worse :D
Once recession inevitably hits (though easy to argue conditions are getting close quickly) I guess we will all be complying with any employer request!
i'd be blowing an employer who hires me.
i'd be blowing an employer who hires me.
Username checks out.
I would like to know but if they say no to 5 days in office what happens, can they be terminated?
of course they can be terminated. Just like refusing any other reasonable request from your employer can result in disciplinary action or termination. As long as they aren't specifically targeting an individual or making unfair/unreasonable demands then refusing can absolutely get you fired.
That's harsh we are 3 days office request for management level and 2 days for individual contributors. I think the average on actual attendance now is 1.6 days management and 0.9 days individual per week. Although it's probably gone up a lot last few weeks.
Gotta get good usage of the office they paid for.
In return you'll get employees that don't want to come in yet don't do as well as if they were working from home.
I know for me as a graphic designer that I perform way better at home and my manager knew that. So I did 2 days office, 3 days home and I can guarantee you that my office days I was working at 70%
But everyone is different.
Most big companies already downsized. My employer now has 1/4 of office space as compared to pre covid. So even if I want to go, there’s no room. I seen government offices has mandatory office days per week.
Also wfh does decrease overall productivity, even if you do well from home don’t mean everyone does. That’s probably why return to office was enforced.
There’s lotta factors to consider. Now everyone sorta is used to home office so commute to work is another full time role with shitty traffic.
Also wfh does decrease overall productivity
Evidence? Keep hearing this opinion from minority of people but no one provides data to support it. My opinion is that it does depend on the type of role, and perhaps managers who are not “on the tools” delivering work are the ones who feel least productive at home.
@Usernames: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-unintended-consequences…
I listen as I drive and don't listen with total focus, I think the evidence was a productivity improvement with WFH.
@gummibear: Thanks, I know most research points to productivity improving when people WFH, which makes it all the more annoying when people spout baseless opinions suggesting the opposite and then use them to justify RTO mandates.
There are different types of people. I am not going into which is better, office or home. But there needs to be a mix of both IMO.
Balance is the key, balance is always a safe spot for anything in life. Too much of anything is bad.
My extrovert new manager wanted me in 5 days a week and I argued facts about me, my work and my behaviour. While he thinks I'm bludging and I think he's an egotistic, brown noser….. I shouldn't judge him wanting to be in 5 days a week but also he shouldn't expect everyone is like him.
Balance baby. Balance.
Balance is the key, balance is always a safe spot for anything in life
Nah, balance is always a safe easy answer to any discussion.
But facts matter. There really are things we don't need any of (like cancer and child molesting) and things we can't get too much of (love, knowledge…) Where any balance is worse.
@GandalfTheCheap: There will always be good and bad in this world.
If you feel balance is a safe answer….. That's how you feel, but reality is, balance is real in any situation.
As I said: Too much of anything is bad. Whether its cancer, child molesting, love, money, whatever it is.
@hasher22: It's called work-life balance.
If you WFH you can reply to emails and do something extra early in the morning or late night.
But working in the office every day - turn off your phone at 5.30 until 9.00 next working day. Enjoy…
Same here we had a new office building just as covid hit, they ended up leasing most of it.
by constantly hovering over necks
Wish i was getting 60% - my work has to justify their 99 year lease
Not sure why anyone would want to pay building rent and electricity etc
My employer is trying to enforce 60% return to office, insinuating that there will be repercussions for those who don't follow this mandate.
Are your employers also trying to enforce people returning to office? And what are your thoughts/observations from your fellow colleagues?
Yes to Q1. Hybrid work policy (3 days in, 2 days WFH) was put in effect start of this month for me.
But as I work for a large multinational, the policy was introduced by our foreign overlords and since ANZ is such an insignificant region in the whole scheme of things, no one really cares what we do at the local level.
My manager also doesn't give a shit if we ever go in. And most of my colleagues have kids so office days are an inconvenience for them.
I personally don't mind goin into the office occasionally but realistically, the commute is a waste of time, majority of my stakeholders are interstate and a laptop is all I need.
And most of my colleagues have kids so office days are an inconvenience for them
How did people manage this pre covid?
Unhappily and with additional stress.
so what if covid never happened.
I didn't mind doing 2 days on my own/team's accord but for some reason, once they've branded it "mandatory" and made it three days, it's really not making me want to go in anymore.
Add to that, nowadays most of us have a better setup at home and frankly, it's quite annoying listening to someone have a loud meeting at their desk.
similar for us. finance company with many different teams, some client facing some not. we were all told 3 days a week in the office, but naturally people in roles who weren't interacting with other staff/clients have shifted to only going in once/twice a week. no one has said anything to them, it feels like no one will unless something goes wrong and they're looking for a scapegoat
What's your actual question?
There are plenty of employers who are mandating/strongly encouraging workplace attendance (obviously this whole topic assumes the job can be effectively done remotely). Others are providing a more "do whatever suits you" approach.
For some people, they are very happy to be generally in the workplace and have voluntarily returned "near" full time. Most are happy to comply with employer directions of two or three days a week. Some are pushing back against any stipulated requirements.
Ultimately the market will decide where certain employers/specific jobs/people end up in one camp and others in the other.
Like most things in life, I expect over time there will be a reversion to the mean that I expect will mean a "majority" of time in the workplace for the "majority" of people with WFH occurring for most people some of the time. Other situations will of course exist depending on the totality of circumstances.
I think flexibility is here to stay… mostly… but I think people are delusional if they think they will be able to WFH full time forever.
The tight jobs market has fooled many people into thinking they have control over the situation. It will not last.
Employers will also have a long memory about staff who made a huge fuss about it.
I mean people are paid to do work, the employer does have a say in how that work should be done.
I think flexibility is here to stay… mostly… but I think people are delusional if they think they will be able to WFH full time forever.
This is the most sensible statement that can be made today.
There are a couple of key words/phrases here.
Flexible. A plain English definition of this means everyone gives a little here and gets a little there. Too often in a workplace setting this is taken has "how much time can I spend away from the workplace?".
WFH full time. I agree that for most, this aspiration is delusional. There will always be specific circumstances and scenarios that are thrown up, but for most people/teams/workplaces, it's just not viable and simply won't be the case within the foreseeable future.
I fully support my staff doing WFH. It's great for them and a good opportunity to do things that don't require time - have the school age kids at home in the afternoon with only minor supervision, do some laundry, wait for a tradie or delivery etc. It's great.
I think there will always be some people doing fully remote work, but less than there is now.
Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and the market will tell me so. I am employing two positions this week and I feel like some WFH is a normal expectation, but not many applicants have asked for 100% WFH. We will not offer it. I know others do, which is their choice.
I have been WFH 5 days/week for 3 years.
My manager is happy, and it makes my life so much easier with little kids.
Managers need to trust their employees to get the job done. If there is no trust, why employ them?
but for most people/teams/workplaces, it's just not viable and simply won't be the case within the foreseeable future.
Most jobs are sitting in meetings and talking on the phone, why can't that be done at home? Level 1 tech support, customer service, insurance incomings the list goes on for jobs that can be full time WFH.
I agree, but I just think the balance is more towards mostly working from home (for jobs that can) and less at the office.
I believe the studies that show work from home is more productive for most office workers.
And I think that despite the strength of silly centuries-old traditions that dictate most of corporate behaviour, more work for less dollars is enough to break this one.
In the end, the most profitable businesses will outlast their stupid, stubborn, backwards competitors.
I think 2 or 3 days in office will be the norm going forward. 2 or 3 will depend on whether employees or employers feel more empowered.
I agree flexibility is here to stay but I think some people have wildly different ideas of what flexibility means.
I think in this scenario flexibility will end up meaning that an employee can say they are going to WFH once every now and then, maybe once a week, once every second week, and their employer probably won't raise their eyebrows at it. But too much and they will question it.
Other people think that flexibility means WFH 2-3 days a week until the end of time, personally I think this is just ridiculous and you will find yourself in the office sooner or later.
I find it weird people are attacking me for asking people to come into work 2 days a week - as if I have no say at all. GTFO.
People are so entitled it's ridiculous. Employers do have a say in how the business runs. If you think otherwise you're living in an alternate reality.
@lunchbox99: I think the solution to those attacking you for asking them to come back to work is curtailing their WFH access. Give them something to feel hard done by.
@HelpMeiCantSee: My staff say I'm a good boss (at least to my face lol), and I let them WFH up to 3 days per week. It's people on here attacking for having the audacity to ask them to come in 2 days per week. The staff themselves say it's fine.
@lunchbox99: Most normal people would be fine with it, but there is definitely a generational subset who feel entitled to all rights and no responsibilities. Perfect example is a few replies above mr “I don’t need to attend boring meetings”
If a job can be 100% WFH, I would be gravely concerned at how easily replaceable those staff would be.
@HelpMeiCantSee: I also think it's incredibly naive if people think that everyone works diligently without supervision (or at least the perception that it could be noticed). Lots of people will coast along at half speed when they think nobody will notice.
I concur with the outcome of the publication someone posted here from the Netherlands. I estimate offsite work productivity is about 75% of the level before covid. Sure people start early and jump on briefly later than normal, but there are significant gaps in between where some people (always the same people) go AWOL for extended periods.
@lunchbox99: I can tell you now that i spent most of my time in the office finding ways to waste time. Did next to nothing. WFH meant i could spend dedicated quiet time getting the work done. In between I could get a lot of necessary things done around the house. Going into the office is a total waste of my time.
"BuT It'S fOR ThE OffICE CulTUrE"
with the government its about bums on seats to justify their huge office fitouts and rents.
Private, i cant see the benefit of getting people back in other than to keep an eye on them.
I still find it funny how the super funds are the ones spruiking it the most to "return to the office"
Only because commercial rents are in the sh1tter and super funds are the ones hurting.
If your contract says x hours in the office then yes you'll need to be in the office, if it just says x hours then i'd challenge it.
If you'd rather not be around your colleagues though i'd consider maybe changing jobs.
I require my staff onsite at least 2 days a week. I don't give a toss about office rental (we don't rent). It's about more effective coordination and communication. Zoom, email and phone are fine for lots of things but it's no substitute for speaking to people in person.
Yeah, it's a pain to micromanage people when you cant just walk over to them in an office. I mean, it can be really hard to relay a snide, condescending, snarky tone over an email…
i see you have developed this skill
….about those TPS reports….
Then you have rubbish ways of working remotely. Maybe work on fixing that rather than making people come in. There are some companies that are really great at it. It has to do with both culture and tech.
Or maybe you work how I require or you find another job. I allow my staff to work offsite 2-3 days per week. I would not allow anyone 100% WFH. you don’t have to like it. That’s fine
@djsweet: Lol toxic boss. Some of my team wfh 3 days a week.
But don’t worry, I wouldn’t hire you so it’s all good.
@djsweet: I think your definition of toxic is a little off. I've had toxic and an employer asking for you to be in the office 2 to 3 days a week isn't what I'd call a toxic boss. You've been spoilt.
@lunchbox99: You're really enjoying this power trip aren't you. You must feel like a big man with such a hard line approach. How does it feel to be so awesome?
@4foxache: You think it's unreasonable for an employer that pays you to do work, to set minimum terms of engagement like simply showing up to work? Are you ridiculously entitled or just lazy?
Look whether you like it or not, most people will not be able to WFH every day of the week. It really doesn't matter one iota if that upsets you. Harden up princess.
@lunchbox99: I probably have more people reporting to me than you do champ, I'm just not as power giddy as you seem to be. If you think you can dictate terms in this competitive market you are disillusioned.
Name and shame yourself.
Is everyone in on the same 2 days?
If not, how is there more effective coordination and communication when people are still on calls all day because some are in the office and some aren't?
yes they are. but it's not just better coordination between my team, it's also between different departments.
zoom, email, messenger are all substitutes for speaking to people in person. Its exactly what its meant for lol
Not sure what planet you're on.
Calling someone into the office just because you want to see them face to face is a waste of
- time
- fuel
Not to mention the extra hour the employee has to get up to get ready.
The list goes on
If you cant coordinate your staff over zoom/email or text you have alot to learn about management.
They are substitutes, but they are not the same. Lots of human communication is non-verbal.
And I'm not concerned solely with my interaction with them, its their interaction with each other, with other departments and with the business needs we support and service.
Sure if you are some cubicle-based seat warmer, you're probably blissfully ignorant, but it doesn't make you right. Sounds like you need to learn more about effective communication. Get out of your house and interact with people. The world isn't so big and scary. lol.
In any case, I guarantee you most employers will ask staff to return at least on a hybrid basis.
@lunchbox99: as someone who has worked as a project manager with one of the top airlines in Australia, i can tell you that you don't need face to face interactions for effective communication
Sounds like you're probably a boomer still learning his ways around tech. Let me know if you need help using your computer or phone.
@lltravel: I find it hilarious that you would make such ridiculous assumptions about people on the internet. You must be a great PM if you're scared of people. LFMAO
says you. That's only your opinion. I don't want to hear some prat manager waffle on about his own self importance
My office is flexible. There are no actual guidelines for when we can/can't WFH and there's a mixture of what my colleagues do.
Some WFH 4-5 days a week and I only ever see them once a full moon
Some are in the office Tues, Wed and Thurs (TWaTs)
Some are in the office every day with a rare WFH day here and there
I think a max of 2-3 days a week WFH should be enforced (unless there are personal reasons), with only either Monday or Friday being one of the WFH days - not both.
Do you want to comply or are you looking to challenge your employer?