The problem is that people are selfish. They have been able to WFH for the past year or so, and so they expect to be allowed to do so in future.
My employer is doing a phased return to work, going up to expecting staff to do 3 days a week in the office by October. Never mind that the contract of employment that everyone signed when they started the job states that they should be expected to satisfy any reasonable demands with regards to working location, there will doubtless be much moaning about being “forced” to go back into the office.
That’s a little strong. Everyone tries to do what’s in their own best interests.
As @Revels says, people will have to decide for themselves what they’re willing to accept. I’d like to just go in optionally when I feel like it but I’m not going to refuse going in 2/3 days a week. And there are definite advantages to going in.
If I had to be back in full time I would definitely find another job. There’s going to be a while now where employers and employees work to find a new equilibrium.
What an obtuse statement. Are our overseas WFH employees being selfish too or are you coming at this from a purely contractual point of view?
The answer is a flexible approach by allowing employees that can and want to WFH to do so and for others to take a hybrid/full-time office approach as they so choose. Presuming the employee is still as productive then what do you define the problem as being here?
The pandemic has enabled this change and shown for many employees that they can still fulfil their requirements from home just as well as being in the office but with a multitude of other benefits for them. It has also shown many others that WFH just isn’t for them and how important being at the office is for similar individual reasons.
This is such an individual issue that you can’t apply one rule to everyone. If employee well-being and happiness isn’t just lip service from an employer then you’re correct they shouldn’t be “forced” to go back into the office but try and accommodate this new way of working that is being accepted as a new norm. If they don’t, another company will and you’ll potentially lose some of your good talent.
That’s the key point for me. The pandemic has allowed employees to demonstrate that they can work effectively from home - to put it another way, the business case has been made that it works.
If an employer wants people back in the office, they need to demonstrate a good business case for this, not simply stamp their feet and make arbitrary demands. Employees will find a more understanding employer if that happens (as noted upthread).
I don’t think it’s black and white in either direction. I can work perfectly effectively from home and would do so 100% in the future if I could.
Aspects of team effectiveness are severely compromised with the full time WFH approach, however, and I recognise that even if I’m not wholly motivated to solve that issue. I could just as well be the fact that by my being at home effectively I’m screwing up someone else’s role in ways I can’t imagine.
Like it or not, it’s not only the employee’s call as to whether they are as effective from home because they don’t have access to the whole picture. So it isn’t entirely on companies to accommodate whatever employees want to do but, in the same way as all employment issues should be managed (but never are) it needs dialogue and agreement.
The problem my office has is that that the infrastructure internally is not well set up for a hybrid approach, and I suspect we won’t make good changes to allow it.
For example, meeting rooms - with everyone at home, all participants on Teams works perfectly well, but when you have a mixed approach, it’s proving really difficult to get that set up to work. Echos, feedback, not all participants being able to see the same info at the same time, etc.
I do hope we find better solutions though as otherwise it’s going to be near impossible to get Hybrid models working.
Our place has come out with a “2 days WFH if you want it” policy, with the idea that “we are better together” type mantra; which is all well and good. But personally - and I know this isn’t for everyone - I myself have never been better with more time to sleep, saving 10 hours a week commuting, etc etc.
So I wish they would have pushed the boat out a bit further on it, but still allowed people to make a choice.
I have a solid feeling though we’ll be limited by the lowest common denominator which will be a combo of peoples ego deciding which meetings “need” to be in person, and the IT infrastructure not allowing hybrid approaches to be that effective.
This is a problem we’re currently having, luckily my meeting requests are very low so I’m not too worried about it impacting my need to go into the office.
I think what we’ll end up doing is just having smaller meetings without the people on Teams. Which means people get missed out, info doesn’t flow, problems don’t get spotted etc.
My KVM switch arrived today and it works really well for switching my keyboard and mouse between the two computers
I’ve mixed my display ports so that my 3 monitors can be shared across computers too like so…
-
Monitor 1
Monitor 2
Monitor 3
Computer 1
DVI
DVI
HDMI
Computer 2
HDMI
HDMI
DVI
However, I can only have one computer powered up at a time because whichever boots up first gets the all 3 monitors.
Is there some sort of profile switcher I can use to tell the monitors which display ports to use? This would then allow me to have both machines powered up and instantly switch between the two. Or is a mega expensive KVM switch my only option?
Post a link to the switch you’ve bought, I think he means. So he may be able to offer more advice if he knows the specific model you have and the features it offers?
Yeah, sorry, that could’ve been clearer. That’s exactly what I meant.
I used to have this, which worked great until I upgraded to a monitor with a KVM built in, and therefore had no more need for it.
@Ordog , there should be something like the highlighted on the KVM, where a USB upstream port is paired with the display port, then some kind of switch to flip between them.
We get £125 per month (net) to cover WfH expenses like extra electricity and heating, upgrading your internet or working from a local coffee shop with air conditioning if it gets too hot It’s been great so far! Got a chair and it’s covered upgrading my Virgin package
Ha! We basically split the savings of getting rid of the office and split it 50% the business 50% the team working there so it’s worked out pretty well! Nothing atm but keep an eye on honestburgers.co.uk/jobs
. Their choice really.
It’s a USB switch box.
It’s been great so far! Got a chair and it’s covered upgrading my Virgin package 
