Working from home - cameras on laptops?

[bbcessex]

I work from home at least two days a week, and regularly have conference calls etc.

In the past, it's not standard to have laptop cameras switched on for conf calls as we are a financial services company and it's not been common, but that's changing with teams about to regularly work more remotely due to corona policy.

I actually much prefer seeing the person / people I'm talking to and i think it helps with connecting / focus / communication. I've given my team notice that as we are all going to be working from home more (not formally told to yet but likely) I'd like to have work laptop cameras on during team calls wherever possible going forward.

Most people are fine - I've had the obvious comments 'oh no, I'll have to get dressed, ha ha', but a couple of people are really not happy about it (without being specific about why).

It's not mandatory of course, and i can't / won't enforce it, but I will encourage it.

Does anyone else have a view on this? Is it unreasonable to encourage?

What if your colleagues don’t have an office type area to sit and they’re working from the sofa or on a kitchen table. Perhaps they don’t want everyone judging their surroundings? Not everyone is comfortable showing off their home set up.

I work from my kitchen table. Nobody gives a monkeys. The field of vision is very small and you can add fake ones on things like zoom.

Somebody above made this comment to me "(and if you don't think getting ready for work takes much effort then you're lucky enough not to be chronically ill with this or a similar condition and I envy you)" which really makes me laugh. The main reason I have to work mainly for home is because of chronic illness verging on disability. It takes me 90 mins to get ready in the morning. If I only need to get ready to sit at the kitchen table it is very much easier than adding on travel to work time. For people like me who can no longer work full time in an office video conferencing is a godsend.

People are more interested in what is being discussed than whether you'e got the right mascara on. And of course you can wear leggings - they can't be seen - but it's not advisable to leave breakfast stains on your top.

I WFH a lot and have at least 1 conference call a day (also in Financial; services) I would not appreciate a camera, or colleague being able to see the inside of my home. That is my private space.

It has nothing to do with what I am wearing or the state of my house keeping (Iwear the same at home as in the office as it puts me in the right frame of mind, the house is neat and tidy)

No way. Mine is all taped up. At all times. Due to the type of work I do.

Come on ladies, that's silly. Do you really think anyone notices or cares?

I care.

I expect extroverts think it's fine and introverts hate it. But extroverts always get their way so whatever.

I think people are paranoid. No one gives a shit what your wallpaper is like. Or if you are sat at a desk or at the kitchen table. Invasion of my privacy? Bullshit.

As others have said, you can barely see anything, the walls in my kitchen are white - and you can barely see much of them, you can mainly see only my face with a white background, nothing else!!

I had weekly evening accounts conference calls earlier this year where we spent most of the first few minutes, waiting for others to log on, talking about what wine we were all drinking and how our Area Manager had a humungous glass of red!!

If you want to wear your pyjamas for all your work, 99% of the time, fine. no problem! But if a video call is required, its called professional to be ...... dressed?!!

I think people are paranoid. No one gives a shit what your wallpaper is like.

well they should!!!! It's B&Qs finest quality!!!

I work from home full time and I refuse to put my camera on for calls.

My manager suggested it once and I told him no. He’s never asked again.

I think people are paranoid. No one gives a shit what your wallpaper is like.

Well, you can show people the inside of your home if you like - nobody is stopping you have your camera on. But I don't think it's fair to make other people put theirs on when they're not comfortable doing so, and (more importantly) it's not necessary for them to do their job.

However I don't think many jobs actually require video calls at all. They're just something managers insist on because it means they can see what their employees are upto.

A lot of my younger colleagues live in flat shares, and even those with families possibly only have one open plan living space. Many of them will presumably therefore, of necessity, have to work from a bedroom.

WFH during the Coronavirus outbreak isn't a counsel of perfection. It's people doing what they can to make things work during a time of emergency. Why make things harder?

It’s accepted professional behaviour

By whom? My clients include most of the Fortune 500 and public sector and I can't think of one which mandates video calls. Even where companies pay for kit and connection there is no guarantee that the local bandwidth will support hefty Teams calls with multiple video connections.

I also wouldn't require them because too often the video is disruptive and a distraction to the document, design or subject under discussion. Sounds like you need to get better are verbal and auditory cues if you can't manage a meeting without video.

You're at work so you shouldn't be slobbing around in pyjamas anyway ... To be honest some of these posts show why employers can be reluctant to allow working from home as it's obvious a significant number of people take the piss.

Why is it better for the employer if you take the exact same actions on your mouse and keyboard while wearing a suit and a tie rather than pyjamas?

The people saying they're in meetings that aren't important - why do you accept the invite if you have nothing to contribute to the meeting? It's sort of wasting everyone's time. If you accept the meeting invite then you should respect the other attendees and actively participate, not turn on mute and do something else.

I regard all meetings as a relative waste of time, even when the alternative is staring blankly at the wall. Thanks for you advice, in future I'll decline all meetings my bosses and customers try to schedule with me, I'll put "waste of my time" in Outlook as the reason for declining, hopefully that will get them out of the habit of trying to rope me into this nonsense.

Listening while doing something else is an alternative to just listening, so there is no reduction in participation. Unless by "actively participate" you mean people should constantly pipe up with utterances that even in their own opinion are of no value whatsoever.

It’s accepted professional behaviour

Really? The company I work for is huge and Skype for Business is the preferred tool, which we all have throughout the world. Not one call, individual or conference is done with cams on.

"You're at work so you shouldn't be slobbing around in pyjamas anyway"
No, you're at home, working on a computer. If your conference calls are to clients, that's different, but if you are at home, not expecting to sell yourself to clients, you dont have to dress up.

I skype all the time and it's far better than conference calls for meetings but I try not to use it for one-to-one. I've built really good working relationships with people I've never met on the basis of 'seeing' them at least once a week.
Yeah, you can work in your jammies - I never do, but I do dress comfortably - but I also don't see the issue with being presentable to attend a meeting, albeit online. It's never struck me as an unreasonable expectation.

It’s accepted professional behaviour

What a load of pompous twaddle.

British people (and I'm one) are such a fucking pain when it comes to WFH!

When you come to the office, there is an expectation that you are to be present at meetings. By that I mean you're in the room, contributing, providing assurances that you're "there" and taking it in.

Is that so outrageous? Isn't that part of simply being a colleague? So why is it radically different once the person is home?

I get that people can listen in at home, and listen perfectly well. They can take notes, take it all in, form actions from what was said and be effective.

However when I'm in a meeting room physically, you can see people's reactions. You can understand who wants to contribute etc. Non-verbal is a huge part of why meetings work for me.

@bbcessex is not BU to ask something of people who are WFH. People seem to think WFH means their home, their rules - and that somehow us line managers have to work around whatever they've set up at home.

If I've provided you with a laptop, and it has a camera, you can tape it up all you like - I'll just ask you to un-tape it when we do the video calls. You object on the grounds that you want to wear your dressing gown or your kids might run into shot? indeed.co.uk is free for all to browse.

When you come to the office, there is an expectation that you are to be present at meetings. By that I mean you're in the room, contributing, providing assurances that you're "there" and taking it in.

You can do that without your face showing. I have just been on a call - I'm in the office, but the rest are in various US locations. About a third of people had their cameras on. Mostly the screen was showing a shared spreadsheet, so any faces on camera were about 1cm in size, so didn't make much difference if they were showing or not. You could still tell who was actively paying attention or not.

There's a feature on Skype which blurs out the background if you are that bothered.

Personally, I like to see who I am talking to, and have absolutely no issue with video conferencing. It will become more and more common, with less and less travel, especially international. It is the future, get used to it.

Maybe those of us (quite a few of whom have a lot of experience in WFH for global orgs, it seems) who have professional, competent, trustworthy colleagues don't need all these 'visual cues' to know that people are properly engaged? So we can use our screens for data etc.

Maybe those of us (quite a few of whom have a lot of experience in WFH for global orgs, it seems) who have professional, competent, trustworthy colleagues don't need all these 'visual cues' to know that people are properly engaged? So we can use our screens for data etc.

Yes and usually the calls I'm on somebody is screen sharing, so cams would be pointless.

@EBearhug

That's true and I know what you mean about that feature.

Conference calls are still perfectly valid of course in the age of video - it's not always about a presenteeism mindset etc and I'm definitey not trying to cultivate that.

What I am concerned about reading this thread is that if coronavirus was to mean my firm's colleagues were all WFH, then I'll be told what is and isn't acceptable etiquette or practice for my video calls. And i just think that's a bit outrageous when the company provides video chat software and laptops with cameras in order that you can sit from the comfort of your sofa or wherever in the first place!

That's what gets me - there are plenty of jobs where people can NEVER work from home. So why aren't people a little bit more understand that if an employer spends thousands on equipment to enable remote working, that they might ask for a little in return such as showing up on camera to catch up, an action which is in lieu of being in front of us in the office anyway?

So weird.

I wfh couple times a week and we have Skype for video calls no one uses video I’d not be happy being told I had to either