Do you have any idea about productivity ?by the number of hours I get paid to be working for
with about 5 million metrics and reports
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Do you have any idea about productivity ?by the number of hours I get paid to be working for
with about 5 million metrics and reports
Say no more. Few do.
My company tried to off-shore large parts of its IT and project finance/administration and learnt that the apparent cost savings weren't worth it long term and went back to local staff.
Created way too many problems with mistakes, training issues, local staff being hired to "babysit" and ultimately spend more money redoing poor work, loss in local productivity, and the apparent negative cultural impact it had on the rest of the company. Several good staff left during this period and they told me that outsourcing was part of it, I'm sure the feedback was provided in their exit interviews.
depends on the situation. CBA have done specific research that shows their company benefits from people being in the office.
I think flexibility in the workplace isn't going anywhere but being in the office 50% of the time is more than reasonable if thats how CBA want to run their business.
Funny how a company that wants it's workers back in the office has research that shows it benefits from it.
Who would have thought?
dumb post, tin foil hat type thinking.
CBA would financially benefit from people WFH full time. They want people in the office because it has tangible benefits.
The only dumb thing here is thinking that companies don't conduct research that gives them results that support what they want.
Not tinfoil hat thinking at all. It happens in reality, frequently. Want a certain result? Conduct a study in a way that gives you the result you're after.
Has tangible benefits for who? The people that want to continue to work from home or the company that did the research that wants their workers to return to the office?
I've got no skin in the game. I neither work in a position that can be done from home and nor would I work from home. I just don't see what the big deal is and why these companies are trying to force people back into an office they don't want to be in for whatever reason. People wanna work from home and can still complete their job according to key indicators, great let them. People wanna go back to the office that's cool too.
On that core hours of 10-2, does your company allow travel during work hours if you are heading home to work for the afternoon?I think people need to look at it a bit deeper than what is the most efficient way for them personally to get their job done. I'd say 4-6 days in office per fortnight will be pretty standard for those who can reasonably work from home.
I think in a lot of instances, you need to strike the balance between 'same rules for everyone' and 'a bit of common sense with expectations of your team members to be in the office in Melbourne CBD, depending on whether they live in Richmond or Bendigo. I'm returning from a secondment in a VPS department tomorrow and it's been striking how much worse the in office experience was where I've just been: BYO keyboard/mouse, compared to plug in and away you go; people ignoring the desk booking system and invariably finding someone sitting in the desk that I'd booked, no milk in the fridge. never set me up for the printer etc.
I had other justified reasons where I could almost exclusively work from home, but they basically did nothing to sweeten the deal, so I rarely bothered. I'll definitely be making more of an effort back at my original office: I like being in the office and I see the value that it brings and that's hard to measure. You can make it a bit easier on people with a bit of common sense: we have 'core hours': on your days in the office try to be there by 10 and stick around until at least 2, things like that. I know at my work, the people who aren't willing to do anything that would inconvenience them stand out like dog's balls and they certainly don't do much to foster a positive culture.
Yeah I think it's common sense that those hours mainly relate to parents with school drop offs or pick ups to negotiate. And similarly common sense that if work's going to give you that opportunity, then you're obliged to make the extra time up somewhere else (for me it's usually been getting a couple of hours in before the kids are up at 6:30ish).On that core hours of 10-2, does your company allow travel during work hours if you are heading home to work for the afternoon?
Going forward those roles will be eagerly sought & the market will adjust in private enterprise, with the leaners shuffled out.Yeah I think it's common sense that those hours mainly relate to parents with school drop offs or pick ups to negotiate. And similarly common sense that if work's going to give you that opportunity, then you're obliged to make the extra time up somewhere else (for me it's usually been getting a couple of hours in before the kids are up at 6:30ish).
I think people need to look at it a bit deeper than what is the most efficient way for them personally to get their job done. I'd say 4-6 days in office per fortnight will be pretty standard for those who can reasonably work from home.
I think in a lot of instances, you need to strike the balance between 'same rules for everyone' and 'a bit of common sense with expectations of your team members to be in the office in Melbourne CBD, depending on whether they live in Richmond or Bendigo. I'm returning from a secondment in a VPS department tomorrow and it's been striking how much worse the in office experience was where I've just been: BYO keyboard/mouse, compared to plug in and away you go; people ignoring the desk booking system and invariably finding someone sitting in the desk that I'd booked, no milk in the fridge. never set me up for the printer etc.
I had other justified reasons where I could almost exclusively work from home, but they basically did nothing to sweeten the deal, so I rarely bothered. I'll definitely be making more of an effort back at my original office: I like being in the office and I see the value that it brings and that's hard to measure. You can make it a bit easier on people with a bit of common sense: we have 'core hours': on your days in the office try to be there by 10 and stick around until at least 2, things like that. I know at my work, the people who aren't willing to do anything that would inconvenience them stand out like dog's balls and they certainly don't do much to foster a positive culture.
Agree with most of what you say but It is 100% up to the employer how they want to run their business. If they think its best served from people being in the office, then they should get back into the office, which is the same as if they think its WFH, then people can WFH.
If you dont like the way your employer operates, one way or the other leave and go somewhere that offers what you want.
It really is that simple.
its laughable that even in situations like CBA where they are only requesting 50% split of time in office and home, that people still have a whinge.
They'll have a whinge but will they leave?
What will it say about those who stay ?
They'll have a whinge but will they leave?
I mean there are an absolute ton of people in IT that are not doing basic admin that are remote and have been for a long timeI dont get why someone would want to stay working for somewhere where they aren't happy.
IMO the people who want to WFH full time will be weeded out as the economy slows and unemployment goes up. From my experience the ones who can do their job full time at home are very basic admin type roles, and easily replaced.
I'm certainly in favour of flexibility in the workplace but demanding to WFH full time is not being flexible, it's just as rigid as a business saying you need to be in the office full time. has to work both ways.