Surely being on camera for most virtual work meetings is now the standard?

[CantFindTheBeat]

I've just read a post where someone said that not wanting to be on video for a work Teams call whilst working from home was perfectly fine.

Surely this is no longer the case?

Obviously illness, rare WiFi issues and other and minor exceptions happen, but on the whole, don't most employers and managers expect people to be seen as well as heard these days?

Completely agree. Last time I chaired a meeting the participant who refused to put her camera on is our least productive member of staff. I asked her several questions and it was clear from the non-response or the slow one that she was actually doing something else during the meeting.

We made cameras on obligatory during meetings with less that 30 participants and she resigned. Win-Win!

I don't see how it's acceptable to have the camera off and expect remote working to be successful long term.

Well, I've worked remotely since 1995, no video meetings at all for most of that just phone and email . Plus a couple of years around 1990 when there was barely even email. It's absolutely fine.

Exactly this. I think people only think about remote working as some sort of new invention, since covid. Many of us have worked fully remote for a very long time, very successfully.

There may well be differences in roles and culture between the sorts of organisations which have had remote working pre covid and those who were maybe somewhat bounced into it by lockdowns.

How exactly?

How is it different? More so than f2f?

The only meeting where I wouldn’t have my camera on is one where I was expected to observe only and not contribute. Otherwise of course I have my camera on, as do others.

I think being able to see each other, read non-verbal cues, identify engagement, comprehension etc is really helpful. It definitely helps me manage my team.

Wholly agree with this. It’s also incredibly off putting if you are talking or presenting or trying to explain something if the people you’re talking to are just text on a screen.

I dont go on camera because

1. my network is sometimes flaky and need it off to actually get decent meeting quality

2. I've been in b2b meetings non stop and I want to be standing and stretching for those meetings I am listening in on

3. I've gone for a walk for meetings that are listening in on with minimal input needed from me so I get a break for constantly siting down

4. sometimes in those monthly team update ones its boring so I can multitask and get other work done and its less obvious if I have my camera off then on where people can see im not fo used on hearing about the next stupid diversity initiative that does fuck all

My productivity is just fine thanks

Productivity is fine? Highly doubt that if you claim your network is flaky

Productivity is fine? Highly doubt that if you claim your network is flaky

Don't be daft, a lot of peoples work doesn't require constant high bandwidth network access.

i always ask people to put cameras on, it's incredibly rude not to

I'd think it was rude to be made to put a camera on.

What’s more important? Your feelings of rudeness or the climate crisis? Cameras should be off to slash the CO2 footprint of these meetings.

What is the carbon footprint of using video compared to audio only?

New research published in the Resources, Conservation and Recycling journal estimates a one-hour video conference call with the video on generates 157.3 grams of carbon dioxide, far more from the estimated 6.2 grams generated from a call without an activated video camera.
Cameras cost carbon
The analysis suggests if someone takes part in 15 one-hour meetings every week, the monthly carbon footprint from this alone would account for 9.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
It states monthly emissions could be reduced to 377 grams of carbon dioxide by turning off the video, according to the report.
The study estimates if one million video conference users were to switch to meetings without a camera, they would save more than 9,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the equivalent emissions of powering a city of 36,000 people for one month through coal-fired power stations.
https://www.energylivenews.com/2021/01/18/turn-the-camera-off-during-your-online-chats-to-drastically-cut-emissions/

It cuts emissions by 96% to turn off your camera. The exact amount of CO2 depends on the country you are in because different countries generate their electricity from different mixes of green energy and fossil fuels:

“an hour of videoconferencing or streaming emits between 150 and 1000 grams of carbon dioxide. It also uses up to 12 litres of water and an area of land around the size of an iPad mini”

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/01/18/turning-off-your-camera-in-video-calls-could-cut-carbon-emissions-by-96

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210114134033.htm

@BCCGoAway wow that's incredibly interesting!

@BCCGoAway interesting... But surely more than offset by the commuting gains?

Everyone is doing it differently, evidently. But where I work, we feel people should be on camera for most meetings, the exceptions being "town hall" type events and where people are presenting.

@BCCGoAway how does that compare to not driving or getting a train/plane/bus to meetings?

Net zero carbon doesn’t mean, oh I’m not commuting so I can ignore other ways to cut CO2 either as an individual or a business.

It’s rather like saying, I grow my own veg so that offsets recycling so I’m not going to recycle any more.

So I don’t understand the whole ‘offset’ argument? The climate is in crisis, we need to be cutting CO2 everywhere we can, no exceptions

Obviously it’s better than going in person to the meeting unless you are walking/cycling there but those savings doesn’t justify having your camera on when we can communicate just as effectively with the camera off. A 96% reduction in CO2 emissions is huge. Global emissions are still increasing when they need to go down and as soon as possible, there is no excuse to not save where you can, when you can.

Thank you. More businesses need to look at these figures and think green when it comes to the video meetings. The default should be cameras off.

Sometimes I have my camera on and sometimes I don't. I can really struggle to focus when there is a screen full of faces and feel pressured to always look interested and engaged. When it is a long meeting I do get drained being introverted.

I always have camera on even if sat on my bed (and I am fairly senior).

I also went through last few years being a student and was generally the sole student with camera on in lectures (bar the lecturer)

I can't imagine trying to lecture or have a tutorial with no one with camera on. Must be sole destroying.

We can’t communicate as effectively though. We can communicate, yes, but there are definitely advantages to having cameras on in certain types of meetings. If we offset that by a significant reduction in commuting we are still better off.

when we can communicate just as effectively with the camera off

I disagree that this is the case. A lot is lost when cameras are off.