If you can do your job from home then it can be done from India...

[Bewareoftheblob]

This is what my brother has been told by his employers. He works in a small office in a city centre and can work remotely. He admits that their efficiency, especially in terms of the quality of customer service, has been compromised by the team working from home.

They've all been told to go back to the office from mid September, which he is reluctant to do, mainly because he dislikes the commute and has enjoyed being at home with his wife and toddler.

When he (and, I think, some other team members) requested an extension to working from home, they were told in no uncertain terms to get back in to the office, and that they should be wary because 'if you can do your job from home, it can probably be done from India', which my brother has taken as a threat of redundancy.

They were also asked if they didn't feel guilty about the impact they were having on the economy and other people's livelihood - I assume they meant transport/Costa/Pret etc. They were asked to have more of a community spirit. It's a pretty informal place, not very 'corporate' which is why I assume it's been worded in this way!

What do you think? I'm torn to be honest, I totally understand why my brother wants to work from home, but whilst I don't think his company expressed themselves very well, I can see their point too.

So I suppose it's more are they being unreasonable rather than am I being unreasonable!

@SheepandCow - why do you think more jobs have not been transferred already? Do you think inertia and now this pandemic will encourage more companies to do that? And why would us returning to offices stop that move now? Surely the idea has formed and work might already be underway to execute it. That is another reason to continue to wfh and save some money for when the inevitable happens?

Equal numbers of Tory donors are CEOs of large companies who don't give a fuck about what's best for their employees (or clients), but simply want to skimp on office space

I agree. I don’t think they give a fuck about workers full stop.

This has been the Tory way since the year dot.

@daisypond

*Just thinking about yourself and your team. There is more to an organisation than just your team. Developing relationships with other people in the office, learning what's going on, etc.*

Ah... Networking to get yourself up the greasy pole. Making sure you’re seen and getting to know the “right” people. The sooner that goes and people can get jobs through their talent the better.

You've confused nepotism with networking.

You get a sort of natural networking in offices. It's nothing conscious, it's about making contacts through everyday interaction. You get to know the people you see everyday, who you chat to on breaks or in the canteen or by the photocopier or whatever (in the past many good contacts were made on the smoking room)).

People get to know each other's skills and talents and experiences, and naturally they think of you when a suitable opportunity comes up. It's no different to making friends. It's an unforced relationship that develops naturally. Many people are terrible at interviews. It's an unnatural (and often desperate and fake) environment. You're performing and putting on an act. Networking is more natural. Managers and other work contacts gradually get to know the real you.

Equal numbers of Tory donors are CEOs of large companies who don't give a fuck about what's best for their employees (or clients), but simply want to skimp on office space.

I think many big companies are mainly concerned about a healthy workforce and absenteeism. Many can't reduce their footprint easily - for eg my employer (large manufacturing company) has spent £££ at the U.K. head office moving to a hot-desking type environment, and now there isn't enough space to get everyone back safely. People who don't need to be on-site to perform their job are allowed to go in, but have to book in advance and pass a health procedure before accessing the site. In my division almost all of us - except our Chinese colleagues - are still working 100% from home. A lot of us have partners working for other large companies and they are mostly at home too.

This thread is just part of a media and social media drive to get people more worried about their job than their health. "Leave home, sod the NHS, save Pret" as some wag on twitter put it.

If he's less efficient at home, then it makes sense for him to be in office. As for the India comment, him going into the office won't sway that - if firm is going to do that, they'll do it!

Firms (and government) that are currently pushing for people to go back full time to an office when they can work as efficiently at home are pretty much sticking their fingers up at their employees and are being short sighted. If you can work at least as efficiently at home as in the office right now, why would you risk the health of your business and employees by bringing them back at the same time as schools etc are going back, when numbers are on the rise, with a transport system (london) that can't cope Covid-wise?! The more cases there are, the more stringent measures and more risks to the economy etc. Long term, a hybrid of wfh and office based should suit a lot of employees and firms - some will wfh more days than others depending on business needs.
I also believe that the majority of people who slack off at home, probably slack off in the office too. Most people I know have been doing longer hours at home overall.

India offers access to a large pool of highly educated, highly trained workers who speak excellent English

It does indeed - the value placed on education is something the UK would do well to learn from - but IME it's not always the fluency that's the issue but the diction/accent

The sector and area I recruited in involved the majority of my staff being south asian so it's not often I find this difficult, but I still struggle occasionally and the "tutoring" supposedly offered to teleworkers can only do so much

It's often said that true bilingual ability only comes through full immersion among native speakers ... as I find when my French accent falls to bits as soon as I leave their country

Equal numbers of Tory donors are CEOs of large companies who don't give a fuck about what's best for their employees (or clients)

They're pretty unintelligent if they don't since it's rare to build a genuinely successful business while not caring about either

It can depend what's meant by "not giving a f*ck" though; management roles can involve making some tough decisions and it's not always possible to avoid saying "no" - a word which some find difficult to accept no matter how justified it may be

Equal numbers of Tory donors are CEOs of large companies who don't give a fuck about what's best for their employees (or clients)

How can they not care about their clients? Clients go elsewhere if people don’t give a stuff.

Employees, well that’ll be a balance in overall interests of business but very unhappy employees is no great shakes for them either as they leave or talk badly on Glass Door (I didn’t really know about latter until someone put up a scathing review and MD talked about it).

[quote Aridane]@chomalungma

I agree that on this - and other threads - where the working from home champions are out in force, A silo mentality often features[/quote]
It is a silo mentality. We have it in our workplace to a degree already with split sites.

Some people just can't see the bigger picture in an organisation - and just say that their productivity is up, without seeing the wider ramifications if everyone worked from home.

The genie has been let out of the bottle - just perhaps not in the way people think. If people / organisationscanfunction as efficiently and effectively remotely rather than on site, then the work May might as well be done in lower cost destinations

Offshoring jobs isn't simple or easy. I've worked directly with offshoring jobs to India and it is cheaper but brings its own big challenges.

People do need to get back to work for our economy’s sake.

You think that will be a motivation for some?

50/50 home/office, with staggered hours (rather than the traditional 9-5) is the solution. Initially as coronavirus precautions, and later as work/life balance.

With schools going back we'll not be able to social distance as much anyhow. People might as well be back in their offices, at least part-time.

It's in everyone's interests to try to avoid mass redundancies (this includes the city centre cafes, restaurants, shops, bars, dry cleaners, transport workers, office postroom staff, etc). Otherwise we're facing a massive benefits bill...and for those who might think 'sod 'em, just cut benefits', remember when large numbers of people are desperate and destitute they'll eventually turn to other means of making money. Not necessarily legal. We could see widespread social unrest. We'll also see a huge knock-on effect of an increased demand on the criminal justice system, social services, mental health support, and more. The creation of the welfare state (and the charitable support previous to it) was not borne entirely out of altruism.

Full-time permanent work from home is not good for society. Individuals and communities would become increasingly isolated and insular. World's would shrink. Those struggling would be hidden away, cut off from sources of support and help.

Not everyone has to WFH. It should be a choice, where it is possible. It may not be good for society as we know it, but who is to say that the way we operate today is good? People are exhausted when commuting and there has to be a middle ground.

I would prefer to place better work life balance, and family and friends and my local community at the heart of what I do. I don't care for a society where I am told I am entitled for wanting to implement change and selfish for not wating to spend cash on coffee and shit.

I would prefer to place better work life balance, and family and friends and my local community at the heart of what I do. I don't care for a society where I am told I am entitled for wanting to implement change and selfish for not wating to spend cash on coffee and shit

Hear hear.

These threads are becoming increasingly depressing. Work is not life, and people are not robots. The snide remark about an 'unprofessional work environment' when someone mentioned putting an arm around an upset colleague made me die a little inside.

Of course productivity is important. But so is flexibility and treating your staff like human beings. Any idiot knows that happy workers are more productive workers and if that means increasing WFH wherever possible and wanted, so be it.

Some of you sound borderline Dickensian, frankly, and even though my job drives me nuts now and again I thank my lucky stars whenever I read one of these threads that I don't work for/with some of the posters on here.

Any idiot knows that happy workers are more productive workers

Clearly this is not the case with the OP's brother and his co-workers.

I think in almost 600 posts the conversation has moved on a little @SoupDragon

Not really. You claimed that "any idiot knows that happy workers are more productive workers" when that is clearly absolute nonsense. As proved by the OP. I was addressing that.

Well, as is always the case on site populated by random internet sprites and their anecdotes, the OP 'proves' precisely nothing - except perhaps that this particular individual is somewhat lazy and entitled.

Plenty of research supports my 'claim' though.

But you carry on calling my posts 'absolute nonsense', I really couldn't give a shit, love.

I really couldn't give a shit, love.

Your posts prove otherwise.

this particular individual

And all/most of his co-workers.

@SoupDragon

Any idiot knows that happy workers are more productive workers

Clearly this is not the case with the OP's brother and his co-workers.

Maybe there's a difference between happy workers - ones with a good work ethic who are actually working - and happy 'workers' ie people who are pisstakers happy to not work properly while drawing full salary?

Weird to contradict the statement offshoring to India alongside the negative impact on the economy.

Our company was already widely distributed with many people and departments remote. We’ll be expanding that model throughout, but also keeping a smaller office for when people do need to convene face to face. However this was because it proved to be actually more productive to have a fully remote team rather than having a few commuting in for no reason. There will always be requirements to visit the office and customers (once restrictions are lifted) so the risk of it going overseas are very low.

In this scenario I’d try and negotiate a compromise of going in a few times a week and be proactive in coming up with ideas to address the shortcomings from WFH.

According to an article in the Times today, people WFH are putting in an extra hour a day on average, and also attending more meetings

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/return-to-office-home-workers-put-in-an-extra-hour-6kfcmz38m?shareToken=bf18743994ddc16ff29e7da7b5be9758

Lol - love the way the Times reports on how the extra 48 minutes was calculated:

During the 16-week period covering most government lockdowns the span of time between the first and last email sent or meeting attended in a day increased by an average of 48.5 minutes.

Yes, that did seem like a rather unreliable metric...

I work part time, but sometimes I'll exchange emails with the QC guy in India fairly early in the day, then go out for much of the day and do work or exchange emails/Skype with the Californians in the evening.

Occasionally near a code freeze I do genuinely work 2 or 3 times my nominal 4 hour day... but if things are quiet I might not have to do much between the early and late emails .