Society/Culture Working from home vs forced back to the office

[peetoo]

We hear about cbd economies suffering. But have suburban economies boomed? Perhaps more cbd needs to be residential

Having said that Melbourne was chokkas last time I went in. End of year parties etc

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I don’t really see it that way. Purely anecdotal but I know at least a couple of people who are “wallowing” in their WFH. I kind of see working in the office as one of those expectations that are annoying but ultimately for our own good.

Well that hasn't been my experiencing managing people who do have these problems.

 

[faible]

Plenty of people I know don't want to work full time in the office or from home, a 2/3 or 3/2 split seems to be a sweet spot for most.

You still get the in-person conversations and team-building elements, still get out of the house some days, but then have other days when you can WFH.

I'd argue many people aren't built for long-term full time WFH arrangements, and plenty won't have a suitable setup to facilitate it either. There's a strong social element that's missed (for those who actually like their colleagues).

 

[the_interloper]

Working from home is great when you're hungover from the Xmas party

 

[ElectricG]

Working from home is great when you're hungover from the Xmas party

Or have errands. Or just cbf doing much.

 

[Cap]

Or have errands. Or just cbf doing much.

If you have the mindset like that I reckon your work location is meaningless anyway.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Basil Zempilas lashes out

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/work/at-work/people-are-at-their-best-when-they-have-a-choice-aussie-bosses-give-up-on-ending-wfh/news-story/d479f8485e6d6ff802565c59e7f8c50d

 

[Cap]

Plenty of people I know don't want to work full time in the office or from home, a 2/3 or 3/2 split seems to be a sweet spot for most.

You still get the in-person conversations and team-building elements, still get out of the house some days, but then have other days when you can WFH.

I'd argue many people aren't built for long-term full time WFH arrangements, and plenty won't have a suitable setup to facilitate it either. There's a strong social element that's missed (for those who actually like their colleagues).

They are all fair points.

The people that bang on about the social aspect are the worst I've found though, usually not able to self motivate at home and then the main distraction at work if you have to be in at the same time

 

[faible]

They are all fair points.

The people that bang on about the social aspect are the worst I've found though, usually not able to self motivate at home and then the main distraction at work if you have to be in at the same time

There's a special place in hell for people who schedule meetings and then feel like they need to fill every single allocated minute of that meeting with noise instead of just ending it once the relevant discussion is done.

 

[ElectricG]

If you have the mindset like that I reckon your work location is meaningless anyone.

Yeah plus hungry jacks don’t let me work from home the pricks

 

[Cap]

Yeah plus hungry jacks don’t let me work from home the pricks

Well you clearly need to improve your flip

 

[Andre]

WFH was the best thing to come out of the Pandemic.

Winners:

Employee happiness - No longer having to spend time in traffic, that can spend with family/friends instead/doing stuff want to instead. I know I enjoy not spending 2+ hours travelling each day, that I can spend with family now.

Employers needing less office space - Reduced costs for businesses.

Kids - Get more time with parents, especially likely more time with fathers. Though I'm sure teens wouldn't classify it this way.

Non-working partners- More support. Though I'm sure there's a few blokes who'd rather be stuck in a car, rather than do some more chores, most under 60 don't fall in this category these days.

Mothers - still usually the ones doing most of the parenting duties, with childcare not available / affordable for all. With more jobs WFH, both for them and their partners, more can get back into the workforce sooner.

Air quality - less cars on the road means less pollution. Great for asthmatics and others with breathing issues.

Infrastructure spending - new roads are one of the biggest infrastructure spends at all levels of government. Less cars on the roads means reduced / pushing back, the size of new roads, plus longer before maintenance is needed on roads.

Greenhouse gas emissions - transport is one of the biggest contributors to our CO2 emissions. Getting more people WFH is an easy win on the way to Net Zero.

Suburban eateries - with less in the CBD's of cities, there'll be more in the suburbs who CBF'd making lunches who'll get something.

Yes there are a couple of (very vocal) losers:

CBD eateries - rely on foot traffic and office orders.

Those leasing office space, especially in CBD's.


Now of those two losers, Office space can often be converted into apartments, which, given the housing crisis, arguably makes that also a win for WFH.

The benefits to individuals, society and the world (via reduced pollution / CO2 emissions), makes WFH a no-brainer, that all levels of government should be doing their best to make available, and trying to remove any hurdles to its adoption.

 

[ElectricG]

WFH was the best thing to come out of the Pandemic.

Winners:

Employee happiness - No longer having to spend time in traffic, that can spend with family/friends instead/doing stuff want to instead. I know I enjoy not spending 2+ hours travelling each day, that I can spend with family now.

Employers needing less office space - Reduced costs for businesses.

Kids - Get more time with parents, especially likely more time with fathers. Though I'm sure teens wouldn't classify it this way.

Non-working partners- More support. Though I'm sure there's a few blokes who'd rather be stuck in a car, rather than do some more chores, most under 60 don't fall in this category these days.

Mothers - still usually the ones doing most of the parenting duties, with childcare not available / affordable for all. With more jobs WFH, both for them and their partners, more can get back into the workforce sooner.

Air quality - less cars on the road means less pollution. Great for asthmatics and others with breathing issues.

Infrastructure spending - new roads are one of the biggest infrastructure spends at all levels of government. Less cars on the roads means reduced / pushing back, the size of new roads, plus longer before maintenance is needed on roads.

Greenhouse gas emissions - transport is one of the biggest contributors to our CO2 emissions. Getting more people WFH is an easy win on the way to Net Zero.

Suburban eateries - with less in the CBD's of cities, there'll be more in the suburbs who CBF'd making lunches who'll get something.

Yes there are a couple of (very vocal) losers:

CBD eateries - rely on foot traffic and office orders.

Those leasing office space, especially in CBD's.


Now of those two losers, Office space can often be converted into apartments, which, given the housing crisis, arguably makes that also a win for WFH.

The benefits to individuals, society and the world (via reduced pollution / CO2 emissions), makes WFH a no-brainer, that all levels of government should be doing their best to make available, and trying to remove any hurdles to its adoption.

lol that is a very carefully selected list of losers.

 

[Andre]

lol that is a very carefully selected list of losers.

Well I could have added in middle managers who want to micro-manage, afraid of losing their jobs if organisations trust their staff, as well as those who want to work in an office and are forced to WFH, but the former losing is a not a real loss and there aren't many that fall into the latter category.

 

[peetoo]

lol that is a very carefully selected list of losers.

I got that as a male who reaches 60, you can stop doing housework

 

[peetoo]

Well I could have added in middle managers who want to micro-manage, afraid of losing their jobs if organisations trust their staff, as well as those who want to work in an office and are forced to WFH, but the former losing is a not a real loss and there aren't many that fall into the latter category.

Middle managers should be coaches and documenters of policy. Next to no work comes through command structure, it’s all through project and request management structure

 

[Blue1980]

There appears to be 2 camps in the loudest pro work from office believers

1. Those with interests linked to office block property investment
2. Those who think that people who work from home are slackers aren't really working

1 is dying down as people see the savings they can make by not having big offices (companies) and the investors pivot to something else realising people ain’t coming back in the same numbers as before.

2. That will die down eventually, also if people aren’t getting their work done wouldn’t it become rather obvious?

 

[ElectricG]

Well I could have added in middle managers who want to micro-manage, afraid of losing their jobs if organisations trust their staff, as well as those who want to work in an office and are forced to WFH, but the former losing is a not a real loss and there aren't many that fall into the latter category.

• people who lose their job because the step from remote work to offshoring is near non-existent
• young people who are supposed to somehow develop into fully fledged adults without the years of full-time face to face interactions (hell most 20-somethings are terrified to make a phone call)
• employers who see the workplace as part of their core culture
• local businesses, despite the efforts to spin this as a positive. I’m sorry but if people aren’t going into work then it follows that less people are eating out
• our cbds are at risk of going from vibrant hives of activities to dull filing cabinets of high density housing
• the good workers who know some of their colleagues are just sitting at home doing fk all and getting paid the same as them

I acknowledge that there are benefits to wfh. I find it’s a certain … type of worker that has the highest enthusiasm for it. If you reckon it’s a “no brainer” then I’d say you aren’t honestly weighing up the pros and cons.

 

[peetoo]

Really good points. A year after return to work I don’t think my workplace has achieved the optimum. Far from it.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Basil Zempilas lashes out

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/work/at-work/people-are-at-their-best-when-they-have-a-choice-aussie-bosses-give-up-on-ending-wfh/news-story/d479f8485e6d6ff802565c59e7f8c50d

Basil Zempilas how did this flog become prominent in any way.

I love how the survey of CEOs is supposed to mean anything, they all talk about "collaboration" but most of them wouldn't be able to name 90% of their staff. They just parrot what gets fed up the chain to them by their executives who also wouldn't know the majority of people reporting through to them or what they actually do on a daily basis. Technology allows for collaboration virtually now, you don't have to be in the same room.

The one thing I agree on is the benefit of new staff members learning from being onsite, at our workplace new employees are expected to be in 5 days a week for the first month or two and ensure at least one person (but usually more) in their team is there each day.

They are all fair points.

The people that bang on about the social aspect are the worst I've found though, usually not able to self motivate at home and then the main distraction at work if you have to be in at the same time

100%! I get along with pretty much everyone I work with in an office of 40-odd people and often have long chats either in the office or via Teams but that's not the purpose of my job. I also hate it when I'm trying to work through a difficult problem or work through a deadline and I get the constant interruptions, either directly or indirectly when people start muttering to themselves waiting for someone to ask "what's going on" so they can unleash.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

1 is dying down as people see the savings they can make by not having big offices (companies) and the investors pivot to something else realising people ain’t coming back in the same numbers as before.

2. That will die down eventually, also if people aren’t getting their work done wouldn’t it become rather obvious?

He forgot 3) those who can't work from home due to the nature of their jobs and are envious of those who have greater flexibility.

 

[The Passenger]

2. That will die down eventually, also if people aren’t getting their work done wouldn’t it become rather obvious?

Management might actually need to evaluate the quality of work they are seeingrather than just thinking "Johnny is at his desk 8 hours a day so he must be alright".

 

[Brad Goodman]

Management might actually need to evaluate the quality of work they are seeingrather than just thinking "Johnny is at his desk 8 hours a day so he must be alright".

I’m not sure mid level managers are capable of that.

 

[Seeds]

WFH was the best thing to come out of the Pandemic.

Winners:

Employee happiness - No longer having to spend time in traffic, that can spend with family/friends instead/doing stuff want to instead. I know I enjoy not spending 2+ hours travelling each day, that I can spend with family now.

Employers needing less office space - Reduced costs for businesses.

Kids - Get more time with parents, especially likely more time with fathers. Though I'm sure teens wouldn't classify it this way.

Non-working partners- More support. Though I'm sure there's a few blokes who'd rather be stuck in a car, rather than do some more chores, most under 60 don't fall in this category these days.

Mothers - still usually the ones doing most of the parenting duties, with childcare not available / affordable for all. With more jobs WFH, both for them and their partners, more can get back into the workforce sooner.

Air quality - less cars on the road means less pollution. Great for asthmatics and others with breathing issues.

Infrastructure spending - new roads are one of the biggest infrastructure spends at all levels of government. Less cars on the roads means reduced / pushing back, the size of new roads, plus longer before maintenance is needed on roads.

Greenhouse gas emissions - transport is one of the biggest contributors to our CO2 emissions. Getting more people WFH is an easy win on the way to Net Zero.

Suburban eateries - with less in the CBD's of cities, there'll be more in the suburbs who CBF'd making lunches who'll get something.

Yes there are a couple of (very vocal) losers:

CBD eateries - rely on foot traffic and office orders.

Those leasing office space, especially in CBD's.


Now of those two losers, Office space can often be converted into apartments, which, given the housing crisis, arguably makes that also a win for WFH.

The benefits to individuals, society and the world (via reduced pollution / CO2 emissions), makes WFH a no-brainer, that all levels of government should be doing their best to make available, and trying to remove any hurdles to its adoption.

Nailed it. End of thread.

 

[Gavin Excell]

WFH was the best thing to come out of the Pandemic.

Winners:

Employee happiness - No longer having to spend time in traffic, that can spend with family/friends instead/doing stuff want to instead. I know I enjoy not spending 2+ hours travelling each day, that I can spend with family now.

Employers needing less office space - Reduced costs for businesses.

Kids - Get more time with parents, especially likely more time with fathers. Though I'm sure teens wouldn't classify it this way.

Non-working partners- More support. Though I'm sure there's a few blokes who'd rather be stuck in a car, rather than do some more chores, most under 60 don't fall in this category these days.

Mothers - still usually the ones doing most of the parenting duties, with childcare not available / affordable for all. With more jobs WFH, both for them and their partners, more can get back into the workforce sooner.

Air quality - less cars on the road means less pollution. Great for asthmatics and others with breathing issues.

Infrastructure spending - new roads are one of the biggest infrastructure spends at all levels of government. Less cars on the roads means reduced / pushing back, the size of new roads, plus longer before maintenance is needed on roads.

Greenhouse gas emissions - transport is one of the biggest contributors to our CO2 emissions. Getting more people WFH is an easy win on the way to Net Zero.

Suburban eateries - with less in the CBD's of cities, there'll be more in the suburbs who CBF'd making lunches who'll get something.

Yes there are a couple of (very vocal) losers:

CBD eateries - rely on foot traffic and office orders.

Those leasing office space, especially in CBD's.


Now of those two losers, Office space can often be converted into apartments, which, given the housing crisis, arguably makes that also a win for WFH.

The benefits to individuals, society and the world (via reduced pollution / CO2 emissions), makes WFH a no-brainer, that all levels of government should be doing their best to make available, and trying to remove any hurdles to its adoption.

Excellent post
In particular I think your comment about some children having more time with their fathers can't be overstated