To think 9-5 attendance at work is becoming a bit unnecessary?

[user1485342611]

With modern technology an awful lot of jobs could now be done remotely cutting out long commutes etc and also giving people a bit of flexibility around the hours they work.

Yet the default position in general seems to be that everyone should be in the office, between x hour and y hour, 5 days a week.

AIBU to think that this is becoming less necessary and far more workers could work from home at least part of the time, using remote access and being contactable by phone when needed?

Most training where I work is done remotely, web conferencing or interactive videos type things.
It is a poor substitute for hand on/face to face training, in my opinion.

I do think with so much advancement in technology, and so much more traffic on the roads/pressure on public transport leading to crazy commutes, working from home will gradually become more and more normal. I also think that there is a growing realisation that an 8 hour day doesn't necessarily produce more work than a 5 hour day, it often just leads to more time killing or dragging out work to fill the day.

9-5 made sense when everyone was relying on typewriters, post and being able to ring people at their desk phones; and when people could leave the office at 5 and be home in time for tea at 6. It was also a time when married women didn't work so there was no problem regarding getting kids to and from childminders.

But those days are gone, and I think the world of work needs to adapt and start making proper use of new technology. It has brought enough disadvantages with it, let's start making use of the advantages.

9-5 is based on the old factory mentality anyway. It isn't 1850 anymore thankfully.

You can also widen your pool of potential employees if you can offer remote working. Because not needing to come into the office or only needing to come in on a certain number of days means people who live further and/or have childcare needs may be able to go for a role that they couldn't, if they were going to have to commute in 7-6 each day or whatever. That doesn't matter so much if you're already inundated, but if you're in a niche field and struggle to recruit it might be the thing that gets you a suitable candidate.

the concept of the 5 day week with "office hours" and a weekend will have vanished.

I hope it doesn't. It will turn into people expected to be working 7 days a week. I am doing a lot of work over the weekend when needed - again, because of clients in different zones, but it's my own choice.

That doesn't matter so much if you're already inundated, but if you're in a niche field and struggle to recruit it might be the thing that gets you a suitable candidate.

Also, diversity. In financial services we're seeing more and more interest from potential clients in our diversity stats, and in particular "% women in senior roles" and it's easier to hire/retain/develop those people with a bit of flexibility during the tough years.

The fact is that if you pay people enough that they actually feel it's worth their while to come in, they do

it's not always true, I can show you countless of very well paid people who took the piss as much as they could.
The fact is also that businesses must be competitive, and cannot afford to pay their staff over the market rate.

By experience, we always find the right staff, but not always from England. What we do have is people complaining that they can't find work but refuse to take the jobs that are available. Well, it's a choice, but you can't blame the job market because you want a lay-in on Sunday morning.

If people can't be bothered to work because they are not happy with their salary, they are free to leave and find themselves something more satisfactory.

Otherwise known as "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys."..

I actually think working from home would flush out all the dossers and messers, because they'd be judged totally on their output and the quality of their work

This is pretty naive when all you need is a full timesheet. 2 hours down when you’ve done it in one? Great. Worked for The Firm

I also think that the skivers getting away with it affects the motivation of non-skivers

My employer encourages working from home. The trial showed that productivity is slightly higher. The office is either freezing or boiling, the lighting gives me a headache and it’s so noisy. I work better at home. As I don’t need to commute, I get an extra hour or so work done a day. I rarely bother with a full lunchbreak at home either. I do like being in the office to get support from colleagues but I balance it with home work. The ability to work remotely means I’ll occasionally do work outside of my contracted hours because it’s quick and easy if something needs to be done.

I like being trusted to work at home. It makes me feel appreciated by my employer and as a result, I value and respect them even more.

This is pretty naive when all you need is a full timesheet. 2 hours down when you’ve done it in one? Great. Worked for The Firm

But if the "skiver" got what was estimated as 2 hours work done in 1 hour, then good for them, providing it's of the required quality. If they didn't get it done, then surely their manager should notice that their productivity is 50% of everyone else's . If not, then they probably shouldn't be a manager.

We have to stop measuring work by hours of graft rather than productivity. We absolutely have the means to do that, so why don't we?

People taking the piss is slightly different to people not coming in, because you can take the piss from in the workplace easily enough. Can be a different problem altogether: as we discussed upthread, there are plenty of skivers and inefficient types hiding behind their early starts and late finishes.

And if a business can't afford to pay their staff what's needed in order to get them to come in on bank holidays, for example, then they're not competitive. A business model that doesn't provide sufficient incentive, which is not necessarily the same as complying with NMW laws, is not one that is going to succeed. There do exist people who are complaining about not being able to find work and who wouldn't get out of bed, but by the same token there's no shortage of employers offering shit wages and conditions whining about the lack of commitment from staff. Works both ways!

I mostly work from home and I tend to work odd hours too, usually very early in the day for a bit and then later on for a bit. I have to make myself available in normal office hours though, I think there has to be some kind of universal business hours as otherwise no one would ever get anything done!

You have to be so disciplined when you work at home though, I get loads done and in fact hardly do anything on my day in the office. Some of my colleagues aren’t allowed to work at home as they can’t be trusted to do their work, and some choose to come in daily as they know they can’t be trusted at home! I think companies take a huge risk in letting lots of their workforce work from home, as it’s so time consuming to deal with persistent offenders who don’t do their work.

Otherwise known as "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys."..

qualify peanuts

I know of several company offering a lot more than market value who struggle to recruit local staff. They just end up employing non-nationals, who are paid a lot more than the minimum wage and more than the average salary for the same job, everybody is happy.

What is an acceptable salary is as easy as define as the length of a piece of string...

Exactly Johnny. People should be paid on the basis of work done, not how many hours it takes them. If someone working from home is given realistic deadlines and manages to get their allotted work done to a good standard in less time then it's win win. The company get the work done quickly and the employee gets a better work life balance.

We're too obsessed with time sheets and number of hours worked, rather than deciding how much work needs to be done by what deadline and letting the employee just get on with it.

9-5 would be a dream for me!

It's not that simple though. An awful lot of corporate knowledge is passed on when standing in the kitchen making a coffee/tea, for example. Chatting to colleagues, some personal conversations, other conversations are business driven. You find out what's going on in the company outside your narrow work area. That doesn't happen when working from home. So the whole culture needs to change, and that's not so easy.

It's also a lot easier to spot if someone isn't working the full day if they are in the office. Monitoring people working from home is a whole different thing. Not all managers know in depth what their employees do. So they don't necessarily know if someone is taking a too laid back approach.

There's also massive confidentiality issues. Working from home means you lose the ability to monitor the security of your data.

Oh and I'm self-employed and working from home.... hence why I'm faffing about on MN....

Agree! There are times when I need to be present to do my job and there are other times when it is much more practical and efficient for me to work from home. If needed I am on the end of the phone/ email so it's not like I've disappeared off the face of the planet. Have gone from having a very enlightened boss who got this to one who is all about presenteeism. I am good at my job, conscientious and efficient, so resent my two hour commute on days when I could work equally well from home.

But if the "skiver" got what was estimated as 2 hours work done in 1 hour, then good for them, providing it's of the required quality

Yes - good for them. Even better is said individual is assessed by their chargeable hours

Shit for me if it's my client and I have 2 hours recorded time when I can only bill an hour. Because it's an hour's job

For this reason said individual is short of range of clients to work on as those of us who know this person would rather he worked on other people's clients

We have to stop measuring work by hours of graft rather than productivity

In a professional fee environment the two should equal each other

Having just had an email exchange with my manager, something else has come to mind for me. In my office based role we were micro managed to within an inch of our lives! It was horrendous and led to the entire office feeling pretty demotivated. Now I have a manager who trusts me (he has to in the wfh scenario) I am far more willing to go the extra mile and get stuff done. I actually want to do a good job as he has faith in me.

Just seen someone mention security. We use work laptops exactly the same as office based stuff, with a seperate internet connection to my home one and all the same security, so certainly not an issue in my role.

Hedge, if I'm doing all my work, why does it matter if I do it in 6 or 8 hours hours? Should I fit more in because I'm capable?

If I'm supposed to be online set times, my boss can see it.our system isn't even that sophisticated.

I said in another thread about a guy who was sacked for doing childcare at times he said he wouldn't. HR can be authorised to drop in and check what you're doing if they suspect.

If vital info is passed on over coffee, something is wrong with comms.

Plus, everyone doesn't have to work at home all the time. There are so many solutions and so many intransigent senior bods. One reason I've been long term in my last two jobs is that they positively encourage ways of working that get the best results. I admit I had one boss who'd rather I was in more often but she had the grace to admit her reasons were chatty ones rather than work ones.

You don't always need to work an 8 hour day to get your job done

Totally agree, I have often said I accomplished just as much if not more when I worked part time, I was more energised to work efficiently. When you aren't feeling worked to the max or know you're on tighter time constraints it's easier to make the most of the time you do work. I dread to think how much of my time is spent just talking to colleagues from respite.

Necessary rate is, I think, a more useful concept than market rate. There could be all kinds of reasons why offering the usual salary in the field won't be enough to get quality or even any staff. Perhaps your workplace isn't on a bus route, or you're backward about home working, or your boss is a known cunt, or you expect bank holiday work for the usual rate and there aren't enough people locally willing to give up their day for that, you don't do the 'sexy' cases... dozens of reasons why there might be something about one employer that means the usual rules don't apply to them.

For that reason, I think it's more useful to think about what an employer needs to offer in order to obtain suitable staff. That isn't always just money. People will sometimes sacrifice in order to obtain flexibility. Staff often save money on commuting and childcare when they wfh. If you're offering that, you might be able to get people on less than the usual market rate because the employee still ends up with the same amount in their pocket.

I'm not sure what point you're making with your example there though ikeep? Was the salary that ended up being offered to the foreign nationals the same as the original salary? If it was higher, then the initial rate was evidently not persuasive enough. If it was the same, the terms are fine, they were just looking in the wrong place. Happens sometimes. If you're saying it's possible to price yourself out of a particular role, yes of course, in the same way it's possible to set your terms and conditions so low that you won't get anyone suitable. But that's the nature of the job market, isn't it? Sometimes prospective employer and employee won't be able to meet in the middle to mutual satisfaction. That's up to them.

Ok, so here's a question. If keystroke mapping/open diaries was the price of being able to WFH, would you agree to it?

Fine, as long as it applied across the board and to those in the office as well. My diary is already open to my boss - as is my email inbox.

However I am judged on my output - not the hours worked. Some weeks will be light; others will be manic. The flexibility I'm enjoying today results from a 6am-7pm day I did last week to get something that came in last minute and was time-sensitive, across the line.

The point about putting a load of washing on etc. When I am in the office it's very noticeable that there's loads of time spent waiting for the printer, going to the kitchen to make a brew, chatting to colleagues and so on. I don't have any of that at home. If I want to break off for 10 mins to stick laundry on and unload the dishwasher whilst I'm waiting for the kettle to boil and my tea to mash, I don't see it as any different that someone standing in the office kitchen having a natter whilst making a round of drinks.