Just had a rather interesting argument at work...

[YouSaffBridge]

We work for a pretty large firm, as part of a team of 10 people. Working from home is allowed within the firm - some more senior people do it when they want to, other people have negotiated it as part of their contract. IT etc is all set up to allow complete WFH.

WHF is not part of any of all of our team's contract but our manager is happy to allow it occasionally. One of us WHF one set day a week. Others do it occasionally. Reasons generally include standard things like waiting for large deliveries and workmen and attending doctors appointments. This has also included less urgent things like attending a child's school play, a vet appointment, and half day WHF when juggling caring for an ill child (i.e. both parents doing half days from home).

Our manager is fine with this. Our work couldn't be done all the time from home, but it can be done a lot. I imagine she sees it as part of treating her team like adults and acknowledging we all have lives as well.

At a team meeting this morning (without manager, which is probably relevant) one member of staff kicked off about it. They feel it is unfair that some people can just WHF with little notice. Their main issues as that they cannot, or do not need to, WHF. They don't have a laptop or PC at home they can work on, don't have any dependents that might need care (childcare, vets etc) and live in a rented property so don't need to stay in for tradesman. Individual concerned is very irate and even threw the word "discriminatory" into the conversation.

I can slightly see their point as some reasons for WHF are far less important or urgent than others (want to see your kids play? take a half day). However, when any of us ask to WHF, our manager could always say no if it is a problem - and does not. Most of the rest of the team operate on a "don't ask, don't get" mentality. There is no reason why this individual could not ask to WHF, or as IT if they can borrow a work laptop.

WIBU - is our team discriminatory, or are they U for complaining?

This is a thread about working from home, not IT security

Because the two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other ?

I stand by my previous comments. If the IT infrastructure is allowing machines access into supposed secure systems whilst at the same time being connected to the internet, there's some thin ice somewhere. And the Talk Talk hack has shown (a) people who claim their IT systems are secure are wrong, and (b) modern day hacks can have severe consequences. I have been following the TT hack with keen interest. It's cost is currently in the millions for TT. To say nothing of the 600,000 customers lost.

Anyone who uses a VPN - especially for work - would know what one is - certainly know its an essential element of networking security. If that's condescending boo-fucking-hoo. Because if you're not using one for work, you have more problems than you know about.

For the OP, IT security (and my original point was Information security, not just "IT") is a very real issue. If (as they claim) they work in an industry where Information security is paramount, they will be having regular audits. If the home-working security isn't up to scratch, the auditor won't sign off on it. Meaning either no homeworking, or the company continuing with unsafe practices.

Presumably the company has clearly defined homeworking policies ? Available for all employees to read ?

Also, if personal machines are allowed to connect, what guarantee is there that an attack won't come in via the company network ?

He's only being unreasonable if he's having to pick up work which other staff should do, but can't, because they're WFH (i.e. fielding loads of questions as he happens to be physically there), or if multiple people WFH in the same team is making the decision making process more arduous than it needs to be. Otherwise HIBU.

I can choose to WFH all the time but rarely do as I like the company, prefer to keep work and home separate and although my IT set up at home is ok (own laptop- GASP!!), its not as nice as my office one (Sophie Two Screens ). I also live 10 mins from the office, which helps.

I'm basically paid to do a job rather than to put in x hours so no point in shirking as it'll just be waiting for me the next day. I think most people in WFH roles are in this position.

From the perspective of us men:

;)

Anyone who uses a VPN - especially for work - would know what one is - certainly know its an essential element of networking security. If that's condescending boo-fucking-hoo.

You're not impressing anyone, Lurking. You come across as aggressive and bullying.

lurking IT security is not the OP's problem. It's the problem of whoever does IT in her company. That's the point. It's nothing to do with her AIBU unless her co-workers personal beef is that WFH allows cyber attacks.

Vet appointment is far more urgent that deliveries. Who takes a pet to the vet unless it is unavoidable?! misses point of thread

Calleigh, I know, wrangling a pissed off cat wearing a massive plastic collar into a crate is not exactly my idea of fun

Lurking, while I appreciate your interest, I'm going to assume the 40-strong IT team at my firm are confident that the remote access protocol in the firm is sufficient to protect highly sensitive client data...

lurking
If you took a straw poll of senior people in my company (v famous financial services firm), I'd be surprised if more than half of them could tell you what VPN stood for.
If you asked them how they access our systems from their laptop, they would say 'using our remote working site'

Not knowing the technical term for a VPN doesn't mean a company doesn't have secure systems, nor does it mean they aren't being used properly. It means it is known as something else in that organisation.
And if that is too complex for you to grasp, boo-fucking-hoo

So they haven't Asked for it and don't want it but that's unfair and discrimatory?

Fuck me what a knob. What do they actually want/hope to achieve by bringing it up?

I suspect that he is the one left to do all the shit stuff that you only get involved in if you are there. On-site complaints, interruptions and queries from other departments, "we've run out of xx" etc. I have worked in departments where the WFH brigade basically do what they want, when they want with no sense of co-ordination or team-work.

It is a valid complaint raised in a poor way which makes it easy to cry "sour grapes". Your manager needs to sort it out.

Oh people like that annoy me, so he doesn't need to, hasn't asked to but others shouldn't do it ? doesn't make sense at all! In my job, everyone does slightly different hours and the management are flexible about it, some people choose to come in early and leave early, others come in late and leave late. It works because it means the office is covered longer than it would have to. But others (not in the team) always have to comment about this and says stupid things like part-timer hu hu ha. Mind your own bloody business I say

I don't think he was being UR by complaining. Either your company has a WFH policy or it doesn't. If it does have, then he should be able to WFH occasionally too, and that means your company should provide a laptop for him.
He obviously didn't raise it in the best way but if the WFH policy has developed in an ad hoc manner then I can see how it would be difficult for him to know how to raise it.
Personally I disagree with WFH policies that are based around 'if you have a good enough reason' either the company can support staff working from home or it can't. It does strike me as unfair if staff who can come up with reasons get to WFH and others don't. imo everyone should be allowed a set number of WFH days.

Is your colleague my husband. He swings between moaning that others WFH more than him (I arrange most non-urgent things for my non-working days) and declaring that he will work from home one day a week when our youngest goes to school (and consequently I will work more hours) and that his employer must approve this or it is discriminatory. I ignore these rants most of the time.

As a a manager and employee I manage my own and others flexible working patterns. Being part time I try and work from home as little as possible to maintain my presence in the office, but do use it occasionally for e.g. Medical appointments (I choose not to use it for school plays etc, my children need to learn that I cannot attend everything and the school is quite good about running things on multiple days). But my staff don't need a reason to WFH and I approve virtually all requests (subject to adequate cover in the office).

My mantra to my staff is that flexible working is not a right - and they each need to come up with their own balance for give and take with our employer. If you WFH regularly then I expect you to offer that flexibility back to me by working later where needed etc. If you're not willing to be flexible with me, and work to rule then don't expect me to be happy about allowing you to WFH regularly.

Have you seen their home? Is it perhaps unsuitable for WFH (apart from ICT equipment) and they are resentful about that?

I think your complainer is being a petty dick, tbh.
If he wants to have time to WFH, he would be allowed to, same as the rest - even if it's just a "duvet day" reason, by the sound of it.
If he doesn't have the home kit to work from home, then that's fairly easily rectified, surely? OR does he somehow think he's "owed" a home PC by the company so that he can take advantage of the WFH option?

Either way, petty dick. The limitations are in his own hands to solve, not the problem of the company, and I don't see why the rest of you should have your working lives made harder just because he CBA to deal with it like an adult.

I often worked from home usually because I had a report to write which required great concentration (quite senior role ). I would not have dreamt of going to a school play or whateve.rI migt have timed it to coincide with a delivery, which takes maybe 30 mins at worst . Or hang out the washing . Very occasionally did it to look after sick child-but any child of mine too sick for school would be in bed , with occasional drink/food if well enough , not being entertained by me on the sofa

Lol at that Mitchell and Webb link

He needs to take it up with his manager, not butch about it with peers

Bitch not butch

Where I used to work we had flexi time. This eventually got culled because too many people moaned that others were taking the piss. Those moaning that they weren't being given 'extra free holidays' were those who just worked their hours and refused to do more. That's fine, but people like me got their 'extra free holidays' because we were so overloaded at times we were working for a good hour before they got in, and hours after they left sometimes. The moaning got so bad that flexi time got scrapped for everyone.

Then they brought in WFH capabilities for those it where there was a business benefit. You had to have a bloody good reason to use it though, and needed to demonstrate there being a business benefit. Management thought this would mitigate the moaning. It didn't. The biggest moaners were people who's jobs meant they had to be in the office constantly, apparently this was discriminatory, etc. In the end they kept the access for emergencies (company technically worked 24hrs, though it was exceptionally rare there would be a need to work in the middle of the night it did happen).

Similar moans were made for smokers/people who mad drinks/etc. etc.

Your colleague is being an arse

Your colleague is an idiot. If he was in my team and kept alienating other members of it I would offload him onto another project team.

We live in 2016, and the future is only going to move towards more flexible work agreements for people with skills, he had better get use to it.

Couch, the OP says the manager 'would happily let team member request a work laptop and WFH if they needed to.' They haven't refused to provide a laptop for him.

Is VPN when you use a 'dongle' (I love that word)

Interesting that everyone has assumed it's a man

WFH with sick children is definitely not allowed at all. It's only been allowed when both parents can WFH for half a day each, or something similar.

I suspect it is habit that means no one has asked to WFH "just because" - as it is quite ad hoc, none of us have asked unless we have a reason. It'd be interesting to see what my manager says but in theory, if someone said they just had a huge backlog of admin stuff to catch up on and wanted to concentrate, I imagine our manage would say yes. No one has tested that yet!

BlueJug, the nature of our role means that there are not really any complaints or in-person interruptions etc that someone in the office would have to deal with. Plus even if someone is WFH that would be only one person out of 10, so the person who has an issue would certainly not be the only one left to deal with it. I would completely understand if they were.

99% of the time we are all in the office.

Every work has these sad sacks. They see someone else "getting something" and feel slighted if they don't get exactly the same thing too.

It's like people who get vexed by people having extra breaks or fag breaks or whatever. I don't smoke but I just don't care if some colleagues have a fag. I'll often sit and have a coffee in the office and just chat.

The behaviour of these sad sacks is the height of childishness and I think they are mostly a hangover from the less enlightened workplaces of yesteryear, where everything was a battle.

I'd be more concerned that everyone appears to know that the person that is claiming that its unfair has never asked to WFH.

How do you know unless someone is telling you something that you shouldn't know.