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:
Yep I'm a shit boss. Shit boss with employees that have been with me since the day I started the business (8 years ago), and the shortest tenure being 3 years (excluding 3 hires that started 6 months ago)
I also guess my employees love hanging out with myself as a shit boss outside of work hours, or buys me random gifts and invites me to family events
If you see something as basic as travelling to work as a "waste of time", then you are a shit employee. WFH has been around since the dawn of the civilised world. If you have a genuine need to work from home like a disability, then fair enough - but this is still discretionary on the employer (yep - life's not fair)
Most people defending their "right" to WFH is doing so with the agenda of being able to get away with doing less - plain and simple.
Full time office mandates will be back in full swing within a couple of years - mark my words. Good luck finding a job
Your posts are hilarious to read because you're so full of yourself.
You also lack basic comprehension skills, you want us to believe you're a boss? lol.
Also, where did I ever state I work from home? I won't need any "luck finding a job" once office mandates are in full swing, I was in the office yesterday no dramas.
Either a fail troll attempt or just a very dumb person.
@Willy Beamish: Don’t worry yourself over this guy. He enjoys trying to belittle what others do because it’s not his way. Then mixes up what people say to create his own twisted image of what we do.
If you see something as basic as travelling to work as a "waste of time", then you are a shit employee.
Incorrect. My entire team can prove that statement wrong.
WFH has been around since the dawn of the civilised world.
So nothing should be up for debate and change? What a sad world it would be if that were true.
I’ve made this point in a prior discussion but let’s repeat. What works for me may not work for you, and vice versa. So what’s it to you what I do?
And before you go saying why am I so concerned about what you do. I am not. I am simply saying you should not assume others do nothing simply because they work from home.
@bobolo: Also not true. Another commenter had.
Keep trying, you’ll get a fact right one day.
Hard to believe someone with your attitude is successful. Then again, I’ve seen my fair share of posers in high up positions somehow.
@Mr Random: Did you ever think you can't believe someone with my attitude is successful because you are not successful yourself so you don't actually know what it takes? But its ok…you're comfortable at home counting hours and thinking how great your life is because you don't have to commute to an office, lol
@bobolo: You know I’m taking the piss right now?
We started a civil conversation, you turned nasty, I returned the favour.
I make as much as your employees (as you’ve flaunted) at my full time job. I work hard, and have (and continue to) successfully run a side company for the past 12 years with remote contractors. So let’s not begin to compare who is more successful.
But hey, you got something correct just then! I do think it is great not having to commute to an office where I’d be doing the exact same thing as at home. Which is talking to remote employees on a computer.
Pick up this chat tomorrow so the other OzBargainers can continue to enjoy their popcorn? I’m exhausted from all the hard work we’ve been talking about. Night bud.
@Mr Random: I've been taking the piss from the start - or have you just noticed? lol
Congrats! you make as much money as my employees - and now we know the real reason why you are so defensive about working from home - so you can moonlight and run a side company! Thank you for helping me reinforce why I want all my employees in the office.
@bobolo: Oof, another incorrect statement :(
Never worked on my business during my full time work hours. Fact.
So we cool now?
@Willy Beamish: Glad you find them funny!
Can you give me an example of my "lack of basic comprehension skills?" I can give you several based on your 8th grade level posts
Yes - "very dumb" person. Happy to be "very dumb" and running successful businesses making a tonne of money I guess :)
If you see something as basic as travelling to work as a "waste of time", then you are a shit employee.
So just to be clear… you think people who prefer to do work for an extra couple of hours instead of jostling with big crowds on a brainless commute to be "lazy" and they would be more productive if they instead did said commute? You have a strange perspective mate
@isthisreallife22: Yes, I do. Again, if "jostling with big crowds" is such a big dealbreaker in your life, I'm not interested in hiring you. Some employers may - good luck to them
@bobolo: Not about what is/isn't an issue, just unsure why you think people who value getting more hours in over wasting thise exact same hours doing no work are lazy/unproductive - when in fact it's the opposite?
@isthisreallife22: In my experience - humans are not machines. Just because you save an hour by not commuting to an office, doesn't mean you get an hour more productivity at home. I mentioned previously that not even I, as the business owner, can completely focus on work (not anything like being in an office environment anyway), when working from home. Not saying that just because I can't, nobody else can - but let's be real; the reason why most employees want to work from home is because they can simply get away with doing other things and not being managed.
Being in the office means you are able to interact, exchange ideas, discuss, laugh, joke, inspire, console, motivate, learn, educate, each other on the fly and in real life scenarios can never be replicated on the phone or any virtual meeting.
@bobolo: I mostly agree but that certainly doesn't lead me to conclude the best answer is to made every single person must be there full time, every day of the week. I'm sure that works well for some, but I bet it puts a lot of pressure on others that detracts from their ability to achieve their full potential.
@bobolo: I work for an employer that has no minimum number of days in the office - I go in when I feel like it/when face to face meetings are required (relatively rare). I disagree with your comments regarding productivity and I provide you with one specific reason -> Lets say I'm flat out, in a past life/employer I would be working from 7:00am - 9:00pm in order to get things done. I would leave home at 6:00am to get in at 7:00am and then cab home at 9:00pm to get home at 9:45pm. I'd go to bed and dream of work and then transport myself back to the office. This drained me. On the contrary, at my current employer I can maintain these kinds of hours for longer (if and when needed) without burning out; and whilst I might not be in front of my desk all the time (for example, I'll take 2 hours whenever I can to go on a weekday bike ride) - I'll happily go the extra mile/put in extra hours without giving it a second thought. Any issues you have with your own employees and their flexibility (or lack thereof) is due to your own insecurity and arguably, a failure to implement KPIs that would clearly indicate when someone is taking the piss. Australia/the world has been embracing WFH for 3 years - if there was a huge problem with it, we would've come off the WFH road a year ago.
Mate you're wasting your time. Apparently asking people to do things as their boss when you're paying them makes you a terrible person. Heaven forbid you actually make them turn up to work. Oh mercy. Save us from the tyranny!!
It's ridiculous the amount of uproar because their precious fabric of having to do more actual work is being challenged!! So many lazy pissants in our society nowadays its sickening.
When your best retort to "explain your rationale" is "because I'm the boss and I said" then you aren't having a good faith conversation, or you are simply close minded and unwilling to consider that things you previously assumed to be true may not be.
Personally I'm often still working at 3am after being in meetings most of the 8:30am to 5:30pm. I prefer doing this from home if there's no specific reason to go in. Apparently in your eyes I have this preference because I'm a slacker, not because I'm exhausted from all the hard work I'm doing. To be clear, I did the same thing when I was in the office full time for decades as well. And I was nearly broken. Now I'm less broken and actually get in a bit more work each day to boot. What a tragedy for my employer
Edit: and if my employer enforced a full time return, I'd seriously consider whether I could go back to that life
@isthisreallife22: I'm sorry you had to deal what sounded like a terrible office/employer for decades. That was probably why you were broken - not because you had to physically go to a place of work. If you are working at 3am as an employee - its definitely a management problem. I certainly don't expect any of my guys to do that and if they did, I would definitely put a stop to it.
@bobolo: I don't particularly mind it I work effectively in those hours. In fact, more effectively than in an office environment. Go figure. I've been very successful in my career.
A lot of Elon Musk wannabes on this post. It's my way or the highway.
I agree, so many employees demanding its my way (WFH) or the highway! (I quit)
Did you participate in the protests against mandatory WFH directives during covid peak?
No idea what you're on about. We followed government mandates and as soon as those were lifted, employees were required to be back in office.
@Griffindinho: Yep you are right. I want to micromanage the shit out of them and they love that I do. Because I push them and most earn well above $250k per annum as a result. Don't like it? L E A V E!
@RSmith: We powered through them. Productivity dropped immensely. "Morale" was non existent. Even I struggle to focus at home with distraction of kids, fridge, being comfortable - and its my own business/money on the line.
@bobolo: My company made a record profit. Projects were delivered on time. Although, some people missed the company of others or wanted to get out of their home environment, majority didn't mind. After a company wide survey, we have settled on 2 office days and 3 wfh days. It's good to see your colleagues and have a chat with them.
One good thing about work from home.
When you get a below inflation pay rise, you can adjust your effort accordingly.
If you give a 5℅ real pay cut, it's only fair I give 5℅ less effort.
My productivity drops by about 70% in the office due to all the distraction and socialising so I’ve got inflation covered.
It's not so easy for an employer to give pay rises that keep up with inflation if the clients, particularly those with record profits, refuse to pay higher rates.
Moving from no flex (for staff, boss does what they like) to 80/20 very flex, choosing to go in more than required to network and connect, but have opportunity in projects to step back from attendance. Some things benefit from big face to face brainstorms where no amount of teams meetings can replicate that raw innovation from the hundreds of sub conversations that occur. But so much can be done remotely forcing bums into seats reduces BAU capability. Good staff are a resource to invest in and support, they deliver your business outcomes. If they don't, bye bye, if they do, it's irrelevant where they sit.
I noticed while working from home some people's TEAM status is "Away" unless there are meetings during the day. But people tend to be online at night time.
I support 3 days in office and 2 days from home.
I support 3 days in office and 2 days from home.
This is what people don’t understand when they talk about stagnating wage growth. The effective hourly rate has already skyrocketed by 67% since wfh began. Companies are struggling as a direct consequence of paying five days wages for three days of work
You’re ignorant to think wfh = not doing any work.
Are you a middle manager boomer, or bitter blue collar worker by chance?
Calm down… nobody blames you for taking the free money — this is OzBargain after all :)
@tharlow: All you’ve done is post made up percentages to provoke people. Didn’t hit a nerve with me, I don’t care what you do with your time.
I agree. I WFH full time and don't abuse the privilege - I'm given work to do and do it. If it wasn't done then questions would be asked - and rightly so.
Just do your job and you'll be sweet.
Wage growth has been stagnant long before 2020. But tharlow thinks 'the effective hourly rate has skyrocketed'.
My team does professional services work and everyone has clear deliverables. I would if 3 days in office 2 days WFH equals to 4.5 days in office. As a people manager of a team I have to admit WFH is not as 100% efficient as working in office.
Luckily Teams puts me in busy all the time because former employee's and company have forgotten to remove obsolete weekly meetings.
You can add your own appointments and set your status to busy.
Even we set status "busy", after 5 minutes idle time status will become "away".
What is really annoying is when people work from home, are supposed to be at the computer are 'away' for a majority of the time and take an hour or so to return a call. Makes no sense why unless they aren't anywhere near a computer.
This kind of thing (profanity) frustrates the (profanity) out of me and is why I would be happy for the CEO to instate 5 days a week mandatory return to the office. I'll message someone on Teams asking about something that I need to know to proceed with my work, and they won't (profanity) reply for 2-3 hours. Pisses me off to no end, and I swear the workplace has slowed down as a whole because of this.
There's one specific salesperson at my workplace who I know is a liar (he lied to someone he was hiring) is always away on Teams yet his calendar is "booked out" a lot of the time during the day. He also went on a work trip to Singapore recently and supposedly had "food poisoning" for 4 out of the 5 workdays he was there.
These days I don't bother with saying "hi ____" on Teams or any niceties with people who I know take ages to reply, I'll just jump right into what I need to know.
These days I don't bother with saying "hi ____" on Teams or any niceties with people who I know take ages to reply, I'll just jump right into what I need to know.
I have the following on my status for teams, it seems to work most of the time
"Don't just say hello, ask the question and I will respond when I can. https://nohello.net/en/"
Those that do say hello, and then nothing, I just ignore.
Where I start dropping internal profanities is when a person is showing as green and available yet takes hours to reply when WFH.
Ignoring any mandate if made, what is the worst they can do!
No debt, own house etc etc, plenty super and would looove then to pull this on me haha
Cheers, from the not going back to the office team.
I think a lot of people are in your position. The bloated Australian workforce has made countless people rich, and people coming from overseas can hardly believe the lack of any discernible work ethic. Your generation has certainly had it good, and wfh has undoubtedly made you even richer. It’s time to retire and enjoy the fruits of your underserved wealth. The free wfh money stream has to end sometime, and that time is now
Agree 100% - ready to spend the fruits of my 40 years labour hahaha
WFH has been the topping on the cake!
Back to the desk, wagey.
Buy time tell them you will transition back in slowly 1 day a week for a month or two. Then 2 days for a month or 2 then go 3 days after that.
Or use milestones. 2 days until after New year then 3 days in the new year.
All the while looking for a new job.
For our team at work we doing 2 days til new calendar year then may reconsider. I am thinking in 2023 might say do a 5 day fortnight.
My employer started with 1 day office which everyone loved it.. Things turned sour when 2 days mandate policy was enforced. A lot of people resigned and eventually they had to revise the policy.
What I have seen is people don’t really wanna go back to office anymore. They are willing to spend a day to socialise and have meetings but 2 or 3 days in office is not gonna sit well with most of us.
This. Max 1 day pw unless a very 'people' role (relationship management, events, client visits, etc).
Especially in tech areas. Turnover goes right up when you force them to go into offices 'just because'. There are a lot of bitter boomers and blue collar workers here who have opinions but no clue how this impacts a team and business. If the people are doing their job right, and performing well, let them be. Otherwise the people left after the resignations are picking up the pieces for months while management 'learns' how to better navigate this subject.
Those who want to be in the office every day, knock yourselves out. Mandates should only come if someone's performance is falling while at home. But usually, it's the people in the office who end up less productive (tired from commute, chit chat every hour, work lunch, coffee catch-ups..).
Any managers here find that their WFH staff are "away' more often or take longer to respond on Teams than they are in the office? That's a flag for me when I discuss their WFH privileges.
It's mostly the sending back and forth of verbose messages over a periods of hours or days for something that could have been resolved in minutes through a face-to-face discussion.
Beyond 2 days of WFH a week, productivity suffers when you do complex work with an interdisciplinary team. Not just theirs, but that of those who need them, too. I rarely work from home, because it's too hard to manage activities that way.
It's mostly the sending back and forth of verbose messages over a periods of hours or days for something that could have been resolved in minutes through a face-to-face discussion.
Isn't that just a case of, you know, "can we catch up for a minute when you've got five?" and then you call them on Teams? Functionally it's no different to a face to face, except you're not walking up to their desk and the fact that you can't see if you've got pants on. Sounds like you / they are choosing an inappropriate communication platform to deal with an issue. You could just as easily sit there slinging messages on Teams if someone sits on another floor/building to you.
Realistically in the office things swing the other way, where people perpetually walk up to ask you some minutiae that interrupts you, whereas if they slung you a message and you read/reply when you have a moment 30 minutes later, you don't need to refocus on what you're doing & there's no productivity hit.
Isn't that just a case of, you know, "can we catch up for a minute when you've got five?" and then you call them on Teams? Functionally it's no different to a face to face, except you're not walking up to their desk and the fact that you can't see if you've got pants on.
Yes, and no. Firstly, it's a mindset. Some people do as you suggest, and are great when working from home. Most others defer any discussions until the next time they are in the same space. Or they send "email novels" that I haven't got the time to read, instead of having that 5 minute conversation. No matter how many times you tell them to stop doing so. And messaging on Teams is much slower for complex discussions.
Then there's the issue that not all office spaces are set up to let people have Teams conferences from their desk (think camera/speakers/noise/etc.), and you end up having to spend time booking meeting rooms.
You make a fair point about the interruption side of things, which is why I think having 1 or 2 days of WFH is actually an optimal balance (depending on the role of the person - some stuff can't be done remotely).
@Make it so: I can sympathise with your email novel comment. I find my team management requires much more of my effort to work around these WFH issues.
Now I see many people on here reply, "well you managers just want people onsite to make it easier for you to manage them". My response is.. ummm, yes. Why would I opt for a working model that makes my job 4x more difficult to make your work life easier. Part of my job is to plan, coordinate, monitor, allocate resources etc
It's much more difficult for me to know what is happening and also my email load is much higher. When we are all offsite during lockdowns my email is 200-300 per day and many are mini novels. I find it very challenging just reading all the email let alone properly respond to it all.
@lunchbox99: Amen to that. They comment about impact on their own productivity if they WFH, being unaware of impact on that of others. And yes, hard to maintain an accurate mental 'feel' for the state of things when people aren't around. Like managing through a frosted window.
Yes, all the time. I find it odd that people here are claiming it doesn't occur. I just assume they have limited experienced managing people.
A lot of people here are too worried about their WFH privileges. They don't know what it's like as a manager watching communication, productivity and team cohesion drop.
They also take 30 minutes or longer to reply to a direct teams call at non lunch or break times. .
Oh no, 30 minutes - heavens, no.
If you're working with people that spend their time concentrating on solo tasks, I'll give you the hot tip they're probably screening you because they find your questions inane & need to finish a task they're doing without interruption.
Signed, a worker that frequently screens people unless they tell me what it is they want. (I will do the same thing in the office)
You screen calls from your direct manager calling to talk to you about your performance or lack thereof? Signed a manager that calls when performance is not being met and keeps logs. I will add that it is a problem for me when teams shows as 'available' and it takes that long or longer for a direct to respond, some instances can take hours which smells of keepalive apps.
Signed a manager that calls when performance is not being met and keeps logs
I'm laughing at this level of micromanagement. What sort of professional would respect a manager that busts out a diary with a list of times they didn't pick up the phone? I'd gladly leave a manager who behaved this way.
I don't manage anyone and I've noticed this. Part of the reason why I hate remote work.
Also why I really dislike it when people initiate projects/tasks over Teams. Searching Teams chat is such a pain in the butt compared to having an email chain with all the information in one place.
I work in office 60% in honesty i work more from office as well. So i actually think its better to go back in as you are more productive. Its a privelege not a right, to work from home
Well said, privileged, not right.
People in Australia are way too lucky, to the point where many thinks they're "entitled" to a fk load of things
Australia isn’t the only country to have “WFH” ffs. Boomer mentality.
The company I work for bought in a flexible working policy about 6 months ago. I've asked to have it written into my contract which they were fine with. So I have no concern about being asked to go back into the office even if the policy were to change in the future. Figured, why not get it locked in now and have certainty for the future.
If you really want to fight returning to the office join the white collar union Professionals Australia and they might be able to help you out
Great name! Because it takes a white collar to be a professional!
No disrespect meant to non white collar workers. I just mentioned white collar so OP could quickly understand who the union covers. Of course you don't have to be a white collar worker to be professional.
An employee should follow all "Reasonable" requests from the employer.
If your original employment contract did state the usual work location being the office in question, then even if the employer requests the employee to work in the office 100% of the time, it's still reasonable. Let alone 60%.
That's a very literal way of looking at the situation. You contract might say you have to wear short skirts and keep your BMI under a certain percent to work a white collar secretary job. Doesn't mean it's reasonable. Generally I think people would happily do things if they could see the benefit just being written in the contract doesnt demonstrate benefit
Doesn’t Mean it’s unreasonable either. A healthy bmi puts forward a healthy image of the business, and skirts are great, especially short ones!
So you're equating requiring people to show up to work with sexual harassment. This is classic appealing to extremes. Because an employment contract can't say you can murder your co-workers, all contracts must be unenforceable. smh
Huh. No. Read it again
I work for a German software company. They’re trying to enforce at least 3 days a week in the office but it’s basically being ignored. I go in about twice a week voluntarily because I am good friends with some of my coworkers and want to see them if they’re going to be in, otherwise the office is mostly empty at times.
I’ve tried telling them trying to force this will be a massive fail as they don’t pay that great and the flexibility is one of the biggest appeals of working there. Working as an IT project manager and know I could instantly ditch for another 20% easily but mostly working from home suits me. Let’s see if they learn their lesson as I know a few people will quit if enforcement of this gets serious.
1 day wfh, it’s fine
Some of u r really entitled and I’m laughing at ppl in here crying about having to go to the office 2 days a week
It’s an employee demand market, so WFH the entire time is perfectly acceptable.
If not, just tell off your boss and resign .
Way too many jobs out there for people to cherry pick, so realistically employers can (profanity) off.
This is a win win for the employer that would prefer someone that is a better fit for the work culture and environment they would like to maintain. In jobs whereby salary is more than enough to compensate for effort, managers would happily have staff like this move on as they have a higher chance of interviewing for staff that are happy to work onsite. These people do exist given the right environment and management.
Would only do 2 office days at most if pushed. Have been doing 1 office day for the past year. Prior year was almost wfh every week due to Covid or once every 2 or 3 weeks when that simmered down.
If you’re going to get me into the office there better be company funded events :)
I just do what I'm paid to do, which is work in the office.
Great, I have to start wearing pants again …
Mandatory, I really hate that word and usually when it's added into a sentence it's because the laws behind it are weak at best..
Quit along with everybody else
We are encouraged to be back in the office a day or 2 a week at the moment and from February 2023 it will be mandatory* across the company.
*The General Manager of our department lives in regional NSW and will be in the office a couple of days a month.
I've been going in 1 or 2 days a week and find it works from a contact perspective. The days are no where near as productive from a pure output sense but that's OK, still getting done what i need to get done. Also i find the change of scenery quite healthy from both a mental perspective and also a physical perspective as it's much easier to be moving around to get to the office, at lunch time and around the office.
We are encouraged to be back in the office a day or 2 a week at the moment and from February 2023 it will be mandatory* across the company.
*The General Manager of our department lives in regional NSW and will be in the office a couple of days a month.
How convenient for the manager! The other poor wage slaves have to be forced into the office. Hopefully people quit on mass if they can, but sadly they have rent or mortgages to pay.
A 60% in office/40% WFH hybrid model sounds completely reasonable to me.
It's basically what my employer has done (other than during lockdowns), & personally I think it's a great comprise.
New research suggesting that remote work may be linked to negative health & wellbeing outomes (loneliness/isolation, poor diet, lack of exercise, reduced workplace boundaries, overwork), & recommending a hybrid model as more sustainable.
No one in my team bothers to go to the office except for one day a week where it's been made mandatory. I personally go in five days a week because I like my setup at work, and because I like being in an office environment where there are other people around and I'm not cooped up some room all on my own. There are people who live literally a 10 minute drive from the office but still don't bother to go in. I like being able to walk over to someone's desk to say hi or ask them a question. When working remotely with these people, I could send them a message on Teams and not get a reply for two hours (which is a complete joke and unacceptable unless they're in a workshop or meeting where they are actively participating or have to pay attention 100% of the time).
The CEO for my company isn't a good leader despite what people seem to think. Outside of hitting revenue targets, he really doesn't seem to care about much else nor does he mentor anyone regarding growth. For example the culture has really gone downhill in the past year, with more and more people leaving the company in recent months, as well as more people becoming unhappy with how they're being treated. There is no interest in doing any activities as an organisation either. As a result of his personality, he doesn't care and hasn't put a plan in place for people to return to the office more than one day a week.
So no, there are no plans in place for people to return to the office, despite many times when people will say "wow the office is really buzzing" or "I really like how it feels with everyone in the office" but at the end of the day, these people don't bother coming in or pushing for others to come in more than one day a week.
I swear the people I work with love to talk but don't follow through with their actions (a huge reason why I hate working with people in general).
3 days mandate will be excessive for sure if your role does not NEED you to be interacting in person frequently. E.g. Digital, IT, data roles. Have seen first hand how forcing them into mindless mandates leads to quick turnover…harmful to a business in a market where those tech skills are already hard to source.
You sound like a shit boss ngl.
If someone can do a role 100% exactly the same WFH, forcing them to the office does nothing but make them less productive. You waste hours out of someones day just preparing and traveling to work which means increased energy expenditure on non work related tasks and then reduced performance for work tasks.
You sound like someone that arrives late, leaves early and is never around if someone has questions.