Working From Home

[crazy canuck]

Employees get fired for slacking too much anywhere. But you need to get caught first and second it needs to be serious enough to worth thr trouble of hiring another slacker.

Right, and it is for the first reason that employers are dubious about WFH.  Since the W bit often goes missing. 

[garbon]

Employees get fired for slacking too much anywhere. But you need to get caught first and second it needs to be serious enough to worth thr trouble of hiring another slacker.

Right, and it is for the first reason that employers are dubious about WFH.  Since the W bit often goes missing. 

But we already saw that productivity hadn't declined...

[Zanza]

I cannot micromanage or control my globally distributed team anyway, so whether they are in the office or not does not matter for whether they do work or not.

[crazy canuck]

Employees get fired for slacking too much anywhere. But you need to get caught first and second it needs to be serious enough to worth thr trouble of hiring another slacker.

Right, and it is for the first reason that employers are dubious about WFH.  Since the W bit often goes missing. 

But we already saw that productivity hadn't declined...

During the pandemic no, it increased.  But that is when people didn't have anything else to do.

We don't have any productivity reports for the most recent periods, but anecdotally I can tell you a number of employers are concerned about a perceived drop now that people who are working from home are able to do a number of things outside their homes while they are notionally working. 

[garbon]

Of course, because they have always been worried.

[crazy canuck]

Of course, because they have always been worried.

Fair,

But I think employers generally now have good reason to be.  During the Pandemic when they called an employee, the employee was typically easy to reach.  But anecdotally that is no longer the case.  Some employees are even becoming quite blatant about their attitude that their time is their own, and if they choose to do things like walk the dog, run errands, etc. the employer just has to live with that.

I think employees forget that employers who live in jurisdictions that have strict employment standards laws, cannot be flexible about hours of work.  And so for every hour the employee decides is theirs, there is a lost hour of work.  The employee cannot, by law, work longer to make up for their personal time during the day.

[Sheilbh]

Doesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.

[crazy canuck]

Doesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.

Exactly the point.  So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.

[Sheilbh]

While employers don't expect work or availability outside of contracted hours?

My experience is the jobs most able to WFH tend to have those expectations.

[Tamas]

Doesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.

Exactly the point.  So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.

So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).

[crazy canuck]

Doesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.

Exactly the point.  So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.

So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).

You are assuming employers can monitor time left in WFH environments as well as they do in the office.  That assumption is not correct.

[Zoupa]

In my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.

It is true.  And in this country that is called time theft.  Employees get fired for cause for that.

What does WFH have to do with that? Do you any comparative data on "time-theft" of in-office versus WFH?

This feels like a generational divide.

[Zoupa]

Doesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.

Exactly the point.  So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.

So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).

You are assuming employers can monitor time left in WFH environments as well as they do in the office.  That assumption is not correct.

"Productivity is identical or better but I don't get to justify all the project managers spying on you guys so we're gonna go back to in-office"

[crazy canuck]

In my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.

It is true.  And in this country that is called time theft.  Employees get fired for cause for that.

What does WFH have to do with that? Do you any comparative data on "time-theft" of in-office versus WFH?

This feels like a generational divide.

I don't follow.  Tamas made the point that effectively time theft also occurs in offices.  That doesn't make it right in either situation.

[crazy canuck]

Doesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.

Exactly the point.  So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.

So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).

You are assuming employers can monitor time left in WFH environments as well as they do in the office.  That assumption is not correct.

"Productivity is identical or better but I don't get to justify all the project managers spying on you guys so we're gonna go back to in-office"

What does productivity have to do with time theft?  are you justifying it on the basis that so long as an employee maintains a minimum productivity level, it's ok?  That defence has been tried and rejected by the courts.  At least here.