Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[PedroMoutinho]

45 minutes ago, ddfg said:

I started a new job April 2020 so pretty much been working a home/office rotation since then. Maybe just to be safe we should keep working from home when everything else gets volleyed into the North Sea. The prospect of daily chats about Strictly, Married at 1st Sight or listening to Forth 1 has me considering my options if the laptops all get recalled and we get told its back to the office full time. 

TBH I’d be looking for another job if we got told to wfh full time.

We’ve been able to go in on a totally voluntary basis since August and the vast majority (I’d say 85%+) have been in at least a few days a week since. My and most colleagues’ general well-being has dramatically improved since.

I have absolutely no desire to go back to sitting staring at the same 4 walls all day every day. My employer is quite happy to work out arrangements with people who’d rather be at home full time but so far not many have taken them up on that.

Edited January 18, 2022 by PedroMoutinho

[Ross.]

28 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

In spite of all that talk last year along the lines of “we’ve been told we are never going back to the office”, I reckon when it’s all over a lot folk are gonna get an awful shock that their employers do in-fact want them at their desks.

Much of the reassurance WFH was going to be the norm was to keep staff from looking for other jobs promising the same. 

It’ll be interesting to see how it pans out. A lot of places have realised they don’t need everyone under one roof at the same time and that they could easily get by with less office space, which will save them a small fortune in rental costs. Other places will have been absolutely hammering productivity data on every individual employee to see what difference their location makes  and trying to decide if they are better replacing the staff or just calling everyone back to the office.

[Hillonearth]

29 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

In spite of all that talk last year along the lines of “we’ve been told we are never going back to the office”, I reckon when it’s all over a lot folk are gonna get an awful shock that their employers do in-fact want them at their desks.

Much of the reassurance WFH was going to be the norm was to keep staff from looking for other jobs promising the same. 

While it's unrealistic to think that an element of office working is never returning, I reckon a degree of WFH is now going to be the norm. We're running a few internal recruitments at the moment; the line manager for one is comfortable with no more than a couple of days max in the office per week, another will be primarily office-based due to the nature of the job, and the third has one of those old-school LMs who has innately distrusted WFH from day one and wants their people where they can see them ASAP.

Guess which one's had a healthy amount of interest and which two haven't had a sniff.

[Abdul_Latif]

8 minutes ago, Hillonearth said:

While it's unrealistic to think that an element of office working is never returning, I reckon a degree of WFH is now going to be the norm.

Yeah I’m in agreement there. A fair few people will have to be brought back to the office kicking and screaming even for a portion of their working week though.

[ddfg]

15 minutes ago, Hillonearth said:

While it's unrealistic to think that an element of office working is never returning, I reckon a degree of WFH is now going to be the norm. We're running a few internal recruitments at the moment; the line manager for one is comfortable with no more than a couple of days max in the office per week, another will be primarily office-based due to the nature of the job, and the third has one of those old-school LMs who has innately distrusted WFH from day one and wants their people where they can see them ASAP.

Guess which one's had a healthy amount of interest and which two haven't had a sniff.

As a middleish manager my attitude throughout has been that as long as everything that needs done by Friday night has been done I'm not really too fussed when it gets done. We all have key meetings to attend for our various roles but does it matter if the admin staff type up the minutes and action logs at 2pm on Tuesday or 3am on Wednesday. All that should matter is if they are accurate and shared on time. 

[Michael W]

I certainly couldn't do 100% wfh. I find it boring and also a bit  demotivating. It's a fair point that there is plenty of shite/inane office patter that isn't missed, but the counterbalance is too many Teams/Zoom meetings when you could have just walked over to someone's desk and spoke to them for 5mins. 

I changed jobs in August and the expectation is 3 days in the office when the guidance is relaxed, which I think will be fine. The job does involve a bit of a commute which my previous one did not, so it will be an adjustment. I am looking forward to it, as it has been a bit weird starting and still having not net everyone in person. As has been alluded to, there will be a few that are dragged back kicking and screaming for one reason or another. 

Employers are also on thin ice I think. I might be happy with three days in, but there will be others that want two or even one day in. If they can get that somewhere else, they will probably leave and replacing staff is generally a pain in the arse. Things like not paying commuting costs, school pick up and childcare etc are all things people have benefitted from in the pandemic and people do not want to make their lives more difficult or expensive. From that perspective I don't think a blanket policy is going to be the right one and there will be a few employers that have to make quite sheepish changes to their policies. Perhaps they will also struggle to replace staff that have left if the home/office policy is too rigid.  

[Jimmy Shaker]

Much preferred it when I knew the office was open, and I could at least go in a couple of days a week, or even just a Monday to get the working week going, after which I'd be fine.

Think we were about 50/50 in my last place, split between folk who liked WFH and who you thought you'd never see again and folk who needed to come in otherwise nothing would be done, but by September 2021 it had all sorted itself out and management were content to let folk suit themselves, so long as 40 hours was filled in on your timesheet and you were at least available all day, even if not actually busy because you'd been up til three in the morning working during Monday Night Football or whatever. 

Have finally made an actual office in the house, meaning we're all but certain to get recalled back in at short notice. 

[Left Back]

39 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

Yeah I’m in agreement there. A fair few people will have to be brought back to the office kicking and screaming even for a portion of their working week though.

I'll be one of these.  I generally tend to work in geographically dispersed teams so no real benefit for me travelling into an office on a daily basis.  I barely went in before the pandemic.

My line manager (who I don't actually work for on a day to day basis, she's my line manager and nothing to do with my actual work) is a middle aged spinster, that loves small talk and all the other nonsense chatter, has already discussed being in the office regularly to "catch-up".  I have no time for all the small talk and other drivel in the office.  I just want to get my work done and get logged off as quick as possible.  Her bending my ear asking how things are going gets in the way of that so I want no part of it.

[Hillonearth]

11 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I certainly couldn't do 100% wfh. I find it boring and also a bit  demotivating. It's a fair point that there is plenty of shite/inane office patter that isn't missed, but the counterbalance is too many Teams/Zoom meetings when you could have just walked over to someone's desk and spoke to them for 5mins. 

I changed jobs in August and the expectation is 3 days in the office when the guidance is relaxed, which I think will be fine. The job does involve a bit of a commute which my previous one did not, so it will be an adjustment. I am looking forward to it, as it has been a bit weird starting and still having not net everyone in person. As has been alluded to, there will be a few that are dragged back kicking and screaming for one reason or another. 

Employers are also on thin ice I think. I might be happy with three days in, but there will be others that want two or even one day in. If they can get that somewhere else, they will probably leave and replacing staff is generally a pain in the arse. Things like not paying commuting costs, school pick up and childcare etc are all things people have benefitted from in the pandemic and people do not want to make their lives more difficult or expensive. From that perspective I don't think a blanket policy is going to be the right one and there will be a few employers that have to make quite sheepish changes to their policies. Perhaps they will also struggle to replace staff that have left if the home/office policy is too rigid.  

I think the most important thing for employers to realise is that one size does not fit all, and there's going to have to be a degree of flexibility in future otherwise they'll find it difficult to both recruit and retain people.

Becoming 100% homeworkers simply won't suit a lot of people, but by the same token I think there's a high degree of expectation from probably the majority of employees that by making the WFH thing work for the best part of two years that there'll at least be a hybrid working option going forward. As I said previously, it's notable that the vacancy that isn't getting touched with a bargepole in my place is the section whose LM who just wants to disregard the events of the last couple of years and get their people back in five days a week as soon as they can.

[Michael W]

25 minutes ago, Hillonearth said:

I think the most important thing for employers to realise is that one size does not fit all, and there's going to have to be a degree of flexibility in future otherwise they'll find it difficult to both recruit and retain people.

Becoming 100% homeworkers simply won't suit a lot of people, but by the same token I think there's a high degree of expectation from probably the majority of employees that by making the WFH thing work for the best part of two years that there'll at least be a hybrid working option going forward. As I said previously, it's notable that the vacancy that isn't getting touched with a bargepole in my place is the section whose LM who just wants to disregard the events of the last couple of years and get their people back in five days a week as soon as they can.

I agree. I wouldn't have taken the job I did if the demands were full time or even 4 days a week in the office. The commute is long enough that those terms would be unacceptable to me. A short commute like I had at my previous role and I may have been amenable to such terms, but you have to take the whole thing together. 

I do think inflexibility is an issue. As I've outlined, our expectation is three days in the office - what if people want to be in two days and have compelling reasons? I think the policy should be less rigid and compromise possible. 

@oaksoft has alluded to something as well that could be an issue in some employers. My former employer made a big play about hybrid working and how this was the future and we'd move to a model where we worked where we want. I left before the details were published, but I simply cannot see how that works in practice there. There is a big presenteeism culture that is actively rewarded in terms of bonuses and promotions. The policy sounds good in theory, but I can see it being undermined by implication, even if it is not explicitly undermined. A few conversations about 'visibility' almost certainly being the catalyst to force people back in. Maybe I will be proven wrong, but it'll be interesting to see how that works out. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Michael W

[Billy Jean King]

In spite of all that talk last year along the lines of “we’ve been told we are never going back to the office”, I reckon when it’s all over a lot folk are gonna get an awful shock that their employers do in-fact want them at their desks.
Much of the reassurance WFH was going to be the norm was to keep staff from looking for other jobs promising the same. 

We are done with office working for good. Building already sold and it's a once a fortnight am or pm hot desk slot for anyone that needs it (very few have). A lot of LA staff will never see a return to office based permanence, the savings are just to big to turn down for cash strapped Councils. I know the 3 I deal with have already disposed if umpteen properties that houses staff prior to March 2020. I suspect the private sector might be different.

[Hillonearth]

7 minutes ago, Michael W said:

I agree. I wouldn't have taken the job I did if the demands were full time or even 4 days a week in the office. The commute is long enough that those terms would be unacceptable to me. A short commute like I had at my previous role and I may have been amenable to such terms, but you have to take the whole thing together. 

I do think inflexibility is an issue. As I've outlined, our expectation is three days in the office - what if people want to be in two days and have compelling reasons? I think the policy should be less rigid and compromise possible. 

@oaksoft has alluded to something as well that could be an issue in some employers. My former employer made a big play about hybrid working and how this was the future and we'd move to a model where we worked where we want. I left before the details were published, but I simply cannot see how that works in practice there. There is a big presenteeism culture that is actively rewarded in terms of bonuses and promotions. The policy sounds good in theory, but I can see it being undermined by implication, even if it is not explicitly undermined. A few conversations about 'visibility' almost certainly being the catalyst to force people back in. Maybe I will be proven wrong, but it'll be interesting to see how that works out. 

The presentee thing is something that will have to be reconciled for sure - many places have a culture where working long hours in the office is seen as inherently more laudable than actually producing results - working hard rather than working well I suppose you'd call it. I imagine it'll work itself out eventually, but there will undoubtedly be a rearguard action from those most invested in going back to the old status quo.

 

[VincentGuerin]

38 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

I suspect the reality will be that anyone with any career ambition is probably going to want to be seen at the office but I might be wrong.

The peer pressure on those wanting to wfh will grow as a result of that. People don't want to feel left out or seen in a negative light.

 

I can see a bit of a point here, but I think it's a bit out-dated.

People are just finding new ways of communicating and doing the relationship-building (arse-kissing) in different ways. I've got a manager who values pointless 'face time', so I indulge him with a cheerful call every now and then to update him, have a quick laugh, then next time I email him I make a joke about something we talked about. He's lapping it up. Good work plus a slight understanding of how to communicate and you're fine.

Employers who want to pressure staff into commutes etc will ultimately just lose good staff. Good people will always have options.

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Reads like your manager is smarter than you and knows how motivate your lazy arse.

Depends how you see it, I suppose. I'm not really doing anything different in terms of work-load compared to before.

Either way, it works fine without me or him needing to sit in traffic twice a day and spend on petrol etc.

I think an employer in the 21st century who needs to see people in the office is a poor employer. Communication is different now. Younger staff especially are perfectly capable of doing the relationship-building stuff from a distance.

[scottsdad]

46 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

There's no doubt that most employers don't want the bad publicity of ordering staff back to the office for the time being.

I suspect the reality will be that anyone with any career ambition is probably going to want to be seen at the office but I might be wrong.

The peer pressure on those wanting to wfh will grow as a result of that. People don't want to feel left out or seen in a negative light.

So much has surprised me about people in the last 2 years that I've given up trying to predict with any certainty where things are going but my feeling is that the future will lie in whatever direction the majority want to take it in. Everyone else will either have to go along with it or risk being left behind unless they can find another employer with a working arrangements culture which suits them better.

I'm not sure if the pandemic has changed anything in that regard or not. Time will tell.

For many office workers (thinking of the civil service in particular) the difference will start with meetings. 

Rather than just saying that a meeting will be held online via Teams or Zoom, the invites will come round saying that the meeting is in a certain room, but people can join it online. What will inevitably happen is that the in-room meeting is where all the discussion is, and those joining online are spectating. 

if you have ambitions and want to be seen participating, you'll need to be there.

[Thereisalight..]

4 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Odd to hear on the radio this morning, both Tory and Labour spokespeople saying vaccine passports should be scrapped. Good to hear. 

I went down the Twitter rabbit hole earlier. Saw a few Tory MSPs tweeted about ending restrictions in a few weeks. The replies were as depressing as they were predictable- "reckless" big bad Tories/Westminster etc. Imagine being so ingrained by party politics that youd go along with anything NS said about the covid rules aka pantomime, rather than admit that in this case the Tories have a point. 

[TheScarf]

8 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:

I went down the Twitter rabbit hole earlier. Saw a few Tory MSPs tweeted about ending restrictions in a few weeks. The replies were as depressing as they were predictable- "reckless" big bad Tories/Westminster etc. Imagine being so ingrained by party politics that youd go along with anything NS said about the covid rules aka pantomime, rather than admit that in this case the Tories have a point. 

What do the SNP simps have as an alternative? Keep restrictions indefinitely?  There's nothing 'reckless' about having 3 vaccinations in 6 months (for me anyway), wearing masks, social distancing, staying in my house for a week at a time sometimes (back in April/May 2020).

People want their lives back to normal.  We have the tools to keep Covid at bay.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

What do the SNP simps have as an alternative? Keep restrictions indefinitely?  There's nothing 'reckless' about having 3 vaccinations in 6 months (for me anyway), wearing masks, social distancing, staying in my house for a week at a time sometimes (back in April/May 2020).

People want their lives back to normal.  We have the tools to keep Covid at bay.

For all the tories are scum, they seem to have a fundamental policy that restrictions should be fully supported by data and should be last resort stuff. 

Im not entirely sure why this principle is exclusive to them, to be honest. 

[TheScarf]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

For all the tories are scum, they seem to have a fundamental policy that restrictions should be fully supported by data and should be last resort stuff. 

Im not entirely sure why this principle is exclusive to them, to be honest. 

The SG's emergency powers need to be revoked asap.

[Left Back]

15 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Depends how you see it, I suppose. I'm not really doing anything different in terms of work-load compared to before.

Either way, it works fine without me or him needing to sit in traffic twice a day and spend on petrol etc.

I think an employer in the 21st century who needs to see people in the office is a poor employer. Communication is different now. Younger staff especially are perfectly capable of doing the relationship-building stuff from a distance.

In my experience younger staff are the ones that are pushing to be in the  office more.  They've never had the whole office relationship banter thing and are still "learning" how the work environment functions.  I think they see the best way to achieve that is to be in the work environment.  I suspect they're also less likely to have adequate space to work from home.  The younger guys working for me have been in their respective offices a reasonable amount in the last few months.  the more experienced guys haven't been in at all.