Working from home, good/bad?

[HirdsTheWord]

Fair Work Commission is filled with 60 year olds who havnt adapted

Many companies disagree because Australia has a culture of horrible management. Our management practices are the worst in the western world

Our productivity standard have been in drastic decline since 2012, miles before WFH. This is just a convenient excuse for their incompetence mostly

All these issues are easily solvable is the sad thing. People just dont have the courage to solve them

people have been WFH far before Covid........

I'm not sure about a lot of these claims.....

I believe in flexible working. Which is both employee and employer meeting in the middle. Just expecting to WFH full time when it doesn't suit your employer is not being flexible. Thats just doing what benefits you only.

At the end of the day if you dont like who you work for you have the right and the ability to leave and seek employment from someone else who gives you what you want.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

No, not all my STI's are linked to performance.

Generally, mine are.

1) Performance & KPI's
2) WHS & OHS
3) Meeting company expectations (usually company BS)
4) Promoting Flexible Working to my direct reports
5) Professional Development

Performance is weighted more than the others for obvious reasons, but all up it only makes up roughly 25% of my bonus pool.

Straight from a university handbook which really parlays into a lack of management work

Understand the human behind the performance and react to the person. Cant treat someone like a statistic and complain when they dont have the passion you want

If you have no passion about the person themself, dont expect them to have passion for you or your business

 

[burge13]

I mean that's your view.

Many companies disagree and would much rather a flexible arrangement which IMO is fair.

The Fair Work Commission has acknowledged the benefits in productivity in working in an office setting. Something that is drastically declining in Australia.

Too many jobs for jobs sake

I've orgainised some automations through IT. IT are happy to write scripts and manage the data etc. We've done it all via email, meeting in person once. We're ready to build it and roll out across 2500 people.

Held up because my boss wants a BA to look over it, then a Project Manager to take over. Me and the IT guy have since walked away letting them do it and it'll be at least 6 months slower.

Productivity isn't held up by WFH, it's falling through the floor because people aren't incentivized to be better. We need to have a look at what a salary means and the obsession with fixed hours. I am in the office today but it's a bloody slow period between projects. Had I not shown up, no one would have known/suffered. Why must I sit here until 4 as an arbitrary day? This happens the country over, some jobs are just finished, you're done. Go home, there's no need to stay to clockwatch.

Add this flexibility, offer bonuses (proper ones) to pick up more work (why would I, I'm salaried with no bonus), profit sharing models, actual flexibility. Companies that buy into most of this are going to absolutely pick up the best talent and thrive, regardless of sector. Companies who just stick to the current BAU won't make it IMO

 

[burge13]

No, not all my STI's are linked to performance.

Generally, mine are.

1) Performance & KPI's
2) WHS & OHS
3) Meeting company expectations (usually company BS)
4) Promoting Flexible Working to my direct reports
5) Professional Development

Performance is weighted more than the others for obvious reasons, but all up it only makes up roughly 25% of my bonus pool.

Interesting on point 4...

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Straight from a university handbook which really parlays into a lack of management work

Understand the human behind the performance and react to the person. Cant treat someone like a statistic and complain when they dont have the passion you want

If you have no passion about the person themself, dont expect them to have passion for you or your business

Each to their own i suppose. I am pretty happy with my arrangement.

if i wasn't i wouldn't work where i work.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Interesting on point 4...

whys that?

Flexible doesn't mean WFH 5 days a week.

 

[burge13]

Straight from a university handbook which really parlays into a lack of management work

Understand the human behind the performance and react to the person. Cant treat someone like a statistic and complain when they dont have the passion you want

If you have no passion about the person themself, dont expect them to have passion for you or your business

My previous job had 18 direct reports, 39 indirect. I knew everyones kids names, what sports they played, their interests/hobbies and made a point to 'chat' with everyone before and after asking for anything work related. Focused almost entirely on their development and upskilling. In the time I was there, not one person said no to a favour I asked for. Some even doing double shifts for me for no OT (they just got an RDO), staying back, coming in early, doing work outside their job etc

Reporting straight to the GM/COO, they had no idea if I had kids/married/hobbies nothing. I lasted under a year before I spat at at their ridiculous expectations and lack of support for the workloads they imposed.

it took them 3 months to replace me. In that short time, union involved with staff complaints to them, 6 people quit, 4 more texting me to come back. "we had no idea those above you were so nasty"

You have absolutely nailed the lost part of management here!!!

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Too many jobs for jobs sake

I've orgainised some automations through IT. IT are happy to write scripts and manage the data etc. We've done it all via email, meeting in person once. We're ready to build it and roll out across 2500 people.

Held up because my boss wants a BA to look over it, then a Project Manager to take over. Me and the IT guy have since walked away letting them do it and it'll be at least 6 months slower.

Productivity isn't held up by WFH, it's falling through the floor because people aren't incentivized to be better. We need to have a look at what a salary means and the obsession with fixed hours. I am in the office today but it's a bloody slow period between projects. Had I not shown up, no one would have known/suffered. Why must I sit here until 4 as an arbitrary day? This happens the country over, some jobs are just finished, you're done. Go home, there's no need to stay to clockwatch.

Add this flexibility, offer bonuses (proper ones) to pick up more work (why would I, I'm salaried with no bonus), profit sharing models, actual flexibility. Companies that buy into most of this are going to absolutely pick up the best talent and thrive, regardless of sector. Companies who just stick to the current BAU won't make it IMO

i mean you got to want to work where you work.

I agree about the BAU part, but allowing your staff to work 50% from home is far from BAU. it's quite progressive.

to be clear I have no issues with flexible working. but WFH 5 days a week when you employer wants you to be in office 50% of the time isn't being flexible. Thats just doing what you want.

 

[burge13]

whys that?

Flexible doesn't mean WFH 5 days a week.

No it doesn't but I dont think many expect that, I haven't said that.

Just a ridiculous thing to get a bonus for when cheering the withholding of bonuses for taking away flexibility

 

[burge13]

i mean you got to want to work where you work.

I agree about the BAU part, but allowing your staff to work 50% from home is far from BAU. it's quite progressive.

to be clear I have no issues with flexible working. but WFH 5 days a week when you employer wants you to be in office 50% of the time isn't being flexible. Thats just doing what you want.

Nowhere in my post did I say BAU is 100% WFH. BAU is more than that, as I mentioned

 

[HirdsTheWord]

No it doesn't but I dont think many expect that, I haven't said that.

Just a ridiculous thing to get a bonus for when cheering the withholding of bonuses for taking away flexibility

I dont think we are on the same page? How is ANZ stating that being in the office 50% of the time taking way flexibility?

That seems to be a more than fair offer.

Linking a bonus too it means people need to adhere to it, in order to get the bonus. Dont forget a bonus is a bonus. it's not like ANZ are cutting their salary for not showing up.

You are paid a salary to perform. A bonus is an additional payment for meeting extra objectives that an employer sets out.

You dont just get paid a bonus for doing what you are supposed to do. Thats what the salary is for.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Each to their own i suppose. I am pretty happy with my arrangement.

if i wasn't i wouldn't work where i work.

As a wordly concept in the country of Australia and outside our own individual lives, the arrangement sucks

We have terrible worker productivity with high levels of disengagement.

The arrangements we have suck.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

As a wordly concept in the country of Australia and outside our own individual lives, the arrangement sucks

We have terrible worker productivity with high levels of disengagement.

The arrangements we have suck.

Maybe you think that but i dont. Like i said I'm pretty happy with mine.

I do 1-day WFH a week, I'm actually entitled to do 2.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

I dont think we are on the same page? How is ANZ stating that being in the office 50% of the time taking way flexibility?

That seems to be a more than fair offer.

Linking a bonus too it means people need to adhere to it, in order to get the bonus. Dont forget a bonus is a bonus. it's not like ANZ are cutting their salary for not showing up.

You are paid a salary to perform. A bonus is an additional payment for meeting extra objectives.

How can one side decide what the fair offer is? A agreement between 2 parties is the fair offer. One side proclaiming their offer is fair cos they said so isnt really the path to take

Linking a bonus to things that dont impact the customer is a sure fire way to failure. You may as well link the bonus to how clean my kitchen is in the grand scheme of things

If you cant link a bonus to performance, dont cry when your workers see no desire to perform cos in the end you created the problem you are crying about

 

[HirdsTheWord]

How can one side decide what the fair offer is? A agreement between 2 parties is the fair offer. One side proclaiming their offer is fair cos they said so isnt really the path to take

Linking a bonus to things that dont impact the customer is a sure fire way to failure. You may as well link the bonus to how clean my kitchen is in the grand scheme of things

If you cant link a bonus to performance, dont cry when your workers see no desire to perform cos in the end you created the problem you are crying about

i mean i agree, if a company doesn't treat its employees well, or offer anything competitive, than employees will leave and that company will struggle. No disputes about it.

But in ANZ's example i think it's more than reasonable. And i doubt they will struggle with employee retention for what they are offering.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

i mean i agree, if a company doesn't treat its employees well, then employees will leave.

But in ANZ's example i think it's more than reasonable. And i doubt they will struggle with employee retention for it.

Its not all that reasonable since its not been justified with evidence or well anythin

All it is is a manager whose told off for his staff being unproductive and some douche in a suit looking to blame something other then his own incompetence

This is a out that protects and hides his own underperformance. Nothing more or less. If it was more, his solution would be more data driven then what it is which is a complete hash job by a bloke who spent 2 hours drawing up the plan. Probably at 3PM to 5PM after he got a beatdown at 1PM to 3PM about how poor his staffs output is

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Its not all that reasonable since its not been justified with evidence or well anythin

All it is is a manager whose told off for his staff being unproductive and some douche in a suit looking to blame something other then his own incompetence

This is a out that protects and hides his own underperformance. Nothing more or less. If it was more, his solution would be more data driven then what it is which is a complete hash job by a bloke who spent 2 hours drawing up the plan. Probably at 3PM to 5PM after he got a beatdown at 1PM to 3PM about how poor his staffs output is

I'm not even sure what you are talking about?

A company that's gone from historically full 5 days in the office to now allowing staff 50% of the time to WFH is IMO incredibly reasonable. ANZ is literally paying people above their salary to meet the 50% threshold.

Proof will be in ANZ's staff retention numbers but i suspect they will retain a high amount of quality talent.

If you dont like what ANZ is doing then i suppose dont apply to work with them lol.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

I'm not even sure what you are talking about?

A company that's gone from historically full 5 days in the office to now allowing staff 50% of the time to WFH is IMO incredibly reasonable. ANZ is literally paying people above their salary to meet the 50% threshold.

Proof will be in ANZ's staff retention numbers but i suspect they will retain a high amount of quality talent.

If you dont like what ANZ is doing then i suppose dont apply to work with them lol.

Historically is irrelevant. Today and the future is whats being discussed. Today they can WFH more then 50% and in the future they cannot

ANZ is literally paying people above their salary because they have a shithouse company culture as has been openly diiscussed by the companies employees during this current situation. Paying people more is done for 2 reasons in Australia. One being desire to acquire people from other companies and second is a way to beg people to stay who do not want to be there. Reason 3 SHOULD be due to good performance but we know that doesnt exist in a ton of Australian workplaces so we can leave that one out

Proof isnt in retention numbers, its more or less in productivity numbers. I can hire 10,000 people at 50k a week and they may stay but if they are outworked by 4,000 people on 45k a week cos the 4,000 people are happy then my retention policy is probably a bad thing not a good thing

If you break it down ANZ are overpaying unhappy staff to stay and complaining when they dont work hard enough.... Thats just a big fail

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Historically is irrelevant. Today and the future is whats being discussed. Today they can WFH more then 50% and in the future they cannot

ANZ is literally paying people above their salary because they have a shithouse company culture as has been openly diiscussed by the companies employees during this current situation. Paying people more is done for 2 reasons in Australia. One being desire to acquire people from other companies and second is a way to beg people to stay who do not want to be there. Reason 3 SHOULD be due to good performance but we know that doesnt exist in a ton of Australian workplaces so we can leave that one out

Proof isnt in retention numbers, its more or less in productivity numbers. I can hire 10,000 people at 50k a week and they may stay but if they are outworked by 4,000 people on 45k a week cos the 4,000 people are happy then my retention policy is probably a bad thing not a good thing

If you break it down ANZ are overpaying unhappy staff to stay and complaining when they dont work hard enough.... Thats just a big fail

If staff are unhappy they can leave. That is the point.

I suspect they won’t though because what ANZ are offering is quite good.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

If staff are unhappy they can leave. That is the point.

I suspect they won’t though because what ANZ are offering is quite good.

Australians are scared easily so dont quit. We just threaten it and get more money. That is kind of the point of the producticity commissions findings

People dont quit, they just work less and perform poorly. The employee rights then basically mean they can do this without much retribution and just becomes what winds up being a circle of shit where neither side gets a great outcome

In the end we disagree on which end of the wheel is meant to fix the problem. I think its up to the employer to motivate the staff to perform better not up to the staff to perform better cos they got paid 5k more then they should

 

[Gralin]

The primary driver for return to office isn't improved productivity

It's money. The owners of commercial real estate and the businesses that profit off workers being their want it.

 

[Punt Road Feral]

Genuine question to those who work in CBD offices.

How many minutes or hours of company time would you accumulate in lost productivity from commuting issues per week ie. traffic accident or train delays a week?

And how do your employers react to the issue that’s outside of your control?
Do they expect you to make up for the time lost or they’re ok with it because you’re making an effort going to the office?

 

[burge13]

Genuine question to those who work in CBD offices.

How many minutes or hours of company time would you accumulate in lost productivity from commuting issues per week ie. traffic accident or train delays a week?

And how do your employers react to the issue that’s outside of your control?
Do they expect you to make up for the time lost or they’re ok with it because you’re making an effort going to the office?

Yes, expected to make up time. Clock in, clock out. Hence my previous posts about arbitrary work time rather than focusing on actual tasks/productivity.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Genuine question to those who work in CBD offices.

How many minutes or hours of company time would you accumulate in lost productivity from commuting issues per week ie. traffic accident or train delays a week?

And how do your employers react to the issue that’s outside of your control?
Do they expect you to make up for the time lost or they’re ok with it because you’re making an effort going to the office?

commuter issues seem few and far between these days. I live in Sydney, North Shore area.

i have a pretty consistent run into the CBD (4 days in the office) though there is a clear difference between Monday & Friday being super quick, compared to Tues, Weds, Thurs which seem much busier. Thursday seems to be the new Friday.

Work is same as always, as long as work gets done, they dont generally care when i get in and when i leave.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The primary driver for return to office isn't improved productivity

It's money. The owners of commercial real estate and the businesses that profit off workers being their want it.

Money is the primary driver as always, but it's company profits that will always be the driver.

For example, major banks are one of the biggest tenants of commercial space in the country, combined they would have hundreds of thousands of leased office space. They would save ALOT of money if they went to a full WFH but they seem to be pushing for half office half WFH space time because they have seen measurable improvements in office-based time, which they think will give them increased profits beyond what full time WFH would.

Flexibility is the key it seems. I think that is the new norm.