70 replies to this topic

[Victoria Watcher]

Labour councils are TWICE as likely to let their staff 'work from the beach' than Tory ones as figures show town halls approved more than 1,350 requests from staff to do their job from abroad

 

Labour currently controls seven of the top ten councils in terms of the largest numbers of requests approved in the past three years.

 

This includes Merton Council in south London, which approved 251 requests to work from abroad, Islington Council in north London (237) and Leeds City Council (74).

Tory MP Peter Bone said: ‘Labour councils cost you more and deliver less.

 

‘Maybe these figures show one of the reasons why. You can get more productivity from people being in the office.’

 

It comes after the Daily Mail yesterday revealed how hundreds of council staff have been ‘working from the beach’ – with a ten-fold rise in the number allowed to log in from abroad. 

 

Downing Street yesterday waded into the row over productivity with the Prime Minister’s official spokesman saying ‘in-office working’ should be the ‘default’. 

 

 

 

https://www.dailymai...job-abroad.html

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 04 September 2023 - 10:54 PM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Back-to-office plans fall flat amid arbitrary rules, lack of communication

https://www.cheknews...cation-1167341/

[Victoria Watcher]

More companies are calling people back to the office. Many workers want to stay home

 

https://www.cbc.ca/n...-2023-1.6949749

[Mike K.]

It has to be legislated, and not left to choice.

Why would workers want to go back? They lose hours of every day getting to their jobs, handing the kids off to daycare, and municipalities like Victoria make getting to work more onerous than ever. And then there is the cost if you don’t have east access to a bus. Some people can’t manage the bus when they have to account for their kids going somewhere for the day. For the majority, what is the upside? There is very little.

[Victoria Watcher]

It has to be legislated, and not left to choice.

 

Legislated? 

 

I presume you just mean for government jobs.  All else the market can work out.

[spanky123]

Legislated? 

 

I presume you just mean for government jobs.  All else the market can work out.

 

Agreed. If both the employer and employee find that WFH is beneficial then there is no reason why it won't become broadly accepted.

 

However, I understand that some companies feel that productivity from WFH employees is lower than it is for those working in an office thus the change in policy.

 

In any event supply/demand will resolve the issue.

Edited by spanky123, 05 September 2023 - 07:42 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

Agreed. If both the employer and employee find that WFH is beneficial then there is no reason why it won't become broadly accepted.

 

However, I understand that some companies feel that productivity from WFH employees is lower than it is for those working in an office thus the change in policy.

 

In any event supply/demand will resolve the issue.

 

Yes.

 

If you are near the top salesperson in your company, the (smart) company is not going to make you come to the office if you do not wish to.

 

If you are a low-productivity grunt, you might be released.

[spanky123]

Yes.

 

If you are near the top salesperson in your company, the (smart) company is not going to make you come to the office if you do not wish to.

 

If you are a low-productivity grunt, you might be released.

 

Certainly, some roles are more cut and dry than others.  I don't think that top-performing salespeople have ever been challenged on their work habits as long as they hit quota. Same thing with developers who always deliver quality code on time. 

[Mike K.]

What I mean is employers have to mandate it if they want workers back. You can’t expect workers to return unless you literally force them.

[Victoria Watcher]

What I mean is employers have to mandate it if they want workers back. You can’t expect workers to return unless you literally force them.

 

Well, of course some companies fear losing employees if they push too hard.

[spanky123]

Perhaps employers are simply trying to ensure that their full time employers are still working for them!

 

https://www.hrreport...ing six figures.

 

Nearly eight in 10 — or 79% — remote employees have worked at least two jobs at the same time in the past year.

Known as “overemployed,” the practice is intended to earn extra income and achieve financial freedom, says ResumeBuilder, which did a survey of 1,272 remote workers. And 36% of the respondents said they have at least two full-time jobs, with the majority making six figures

Edited by spanky123, 05 September 2023 - 09:23 AM.

[Victoria Watcher]

CRA fires 120 employees after review of 'inappropriately claimed' CERB payments


https://beta.ctvnews...544492.amp.html

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 September 2023 - 09:35 AM.

[Mike K.]

Well, of course some companies fear losing employees if they push too hard.

 

Exactly. So unless you mandate workers back, they're not coming back, likely ever.

 

And it will require a societal shift to have businesses go out and seek larger offices again. We've already seen several years of down-sizing, while operating costs have only risen. Will a business now down to a 50-person office from a 100-person office, but paying close to what the 100-person office cost in 2019, want to re-lease a larger, much, much more expensive office? That's the dilemma. Small offices are also downsizing, and leaving downtown cores while they do it.

[Victoria Watcher]

When you “mandate workers back” some will quit. You have to manage that risk.

I think we’ve let the genie out of Pandora’s box here. We’ve jumped the aardvark right into a mole hill.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 September 2023 - 09:47 AM.

[Mike K.]

Yes. But society/the press are still not exploring why people will quit.

 

Why would someone quit gainful employment, because they have to go in to work? What are the factors, that would force them to put themselves in a precarious situation, face change, face risks, and become vulnerable by quitting a job and pursuing another? Quitting has serious implications. Want to buy a home? Don't quit your job. Need references for a new job? Probably don't quit, over something as simple as having to work at a job. Also, you never know if what you've got, you've got good.

What is going on, to make people avoid in-person employment to such a degree that they'd rather quit?

[Victoria Watcher]

Lots of people change jobs in the types of jobs suited to WFH.

As long as there are lots of jobs, people will look for opportunities.

[Mike K.]

Yes yes, that's true.

 

But why quit, rather than go into an office (whatever)? What is worse, than the job itself?

[Victoria Watcher]

What I think some people like us do not realize is that many people do not enjoy their jobs.

So yes, they will look to move jobs rather than be mandated to take that 2.5 hour commute.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 September 2023 - 09:56 AM.

[GaryOak]

I wonder how many people who are quitting due to back to office requirements already have another job lined up?

[Victoria Watcher]

Most. That’s true of almost all job-changers above entry-level.



The US Labor Department reported last week that the so-called quits rate–an economic indicator captured in the agency’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey–surged to a record in November. The percentage of people quitting who don’t have a new role lined up might be as high as 28%, according to other surveys.

https://time.com/cha...es-of-quitting/

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 05 September 2023 - 10:29 AM.