There are also knock on effects of emptying city centres of offices and office workers - from the little sandwich business on the corner to city centre pubs and hospitality to lunchtime shoppers in high street shops.
And of repopulating suburbs and villages with shops, sandwich businesses and sellers of decent coffee for all the people who are now at home in the day rather than absent for 12-14 hours.
Is it likely that people working from home pop out for an hour at lunchtime to buy a sandwich and a cup of coffee?
That's quite common once you establish WFH practices. We encourage people to go out for a walk, run errands, meet with friends and family at lunchtime to avoid "chained to your desk" burnout. We also meet up in local groups at coffee shops etc and work together/beside one another once or twice a week.
Yes you have to watch that in staff. Counterintuitively (to the PM) people working from home often chain themselves to the desk and feel they have to be constantly available far more than they do in the office.
Roddy Dunlop QC said it was the difference between WFH and living at work. Its really important to have psychological boundaries and learn to have time when emails just have to wait. Physical boundaries definitely help with this as well if your accomodation can achieve it. Stay away from your workstation when not working. Don't be tempted to stay there, even to play on PB!
I've got a hunch that working from home is a really bad idea. But it'll take a long time to find out whether that's right.
We've been WFH for about 6 years now. It took us about 3 years to figure out how to do things like onboarding and apprentice training. The pandemic was a new set of much tougher constraints. Those being relaxed again has made WFH a pleasure.
A lot of it is spending on things instead of the office space - meetups, co-working spaces or a stipend for junior staff whose living space is unsuitable for home working, these kinds of things.
There are also knock on effects of emptying city centres of offices and office workers - from the little sandwich business on the corner to city centre pubs and hospitality to lunchtime shoppers in high street shops.
And of repopulating suburbs and villages with shops, sandwich businesses and sellers of decent coffee for all the people who are now at home in the day rather than absent for 12-14 hours.
Is it likely that people working from home pop out for an hour at lunchtime to buy a sandwich and a cup of coffee?
That's quite common once you establish WFH practices. We encourage people to go out for a walk, run errands, meet with friends and family at lunchtime to avoid "chained to your desk" burnout. We also meet up in local groups at coffee shops etc and work together/beside one another once or twice a week.
Yes you have to watch that in staff. Counterintuitively (to the PM) people working from home often chain themselves to the desk and feel they have to be constantly available far more than they do in the office.
Roddy Dunlop QC said it was the difference between WFH and living at work. Its really important to have psychological boundaries and learn to have time when emails just have to wait. Physical boundaries definitely help with this as well if your accomodation can achieve it. Stay away from your workstation when not working. Don't be tempted to stay there, even to play on PB!
Right now, I am sitting on the sofa with my phone to read PB, for precisely that reason.
I'm doing a bit of a work collaboratively with a colleague this afternoon and I'm waiting for them to get back from lunch
I've never had a proper job so I have no clue how any of this fucking nonsense works but that isn't going to stop me opining on it. Anybody who doesn't take the absolute piss while WFH is a fucking mug who has not grasped Marx's concept of Surplus Value.
With online tutoring and parting out BMW/Porsches, you're 100% WFH.
The idea that people working from home will be as productive as folk working alongside colleagues (and managers) is obviously laughable - unless they are a novelist or poet.
Whether the politics of pointing this out is smart, I don't know, but most people surely recognise this, even if they are enjoying the freedom and cost-savings of not commuting.
Surprised this is even being debated TBH. But then the entitlement of some people, usually white-collared professionals with handsome pension provision, never ceases to amaze.
I know that industries are all different, but in professional services, where we have the ready metric of chargeable time recorded and costs recovered, productivity is observably higher. I understand that in culture war world something can be objectively true and still "obviously laughable" but the real world picture is more complex. One thing worth remembering is how many of us really worked remotely anyway, because we all travelled to offices and then spent most of the day on calls to people in other offices. There's very little efficiency to that, and a lot of quality of life downside. All that's changed now is that remote working is done at a location of the worker's choosing rather than the employer's/
He's not daft on this. Mechanics, shop workers, delivery people, manual labourers, factory workers etc don't have the luxury of home working and have the capacity to be unimpressed by wealthy professionals whining about having to go to the office. Tioy voters who recently began to home work aren't likely to switch because of the change in tone
Politics of envy then?
Like much of politics, yes. The same as tax the rich arguments etc
Except the tax money you get off the rich can be spent on useful stuff. And many of the rich would like to see the rich taxed more, myself included, so it's not all about the politics of envy.
You could take everything they have and distribute it if you wanted. The level that is 'rich' and the tax that is 'fair' will very from person to person but usually is 'more than me' for both.
It's undoubtedly true that Covid has accelerated the move towards WFH. But it hasn't caused it. Flexible working patterns in the Civil Service, for example, started many years ago, particularly for London-based staff. Many colleagues came into London for 1-3 days a week, and worked at home for the rest of the week (obviously only where this was appropriate for the role). My own role was defined as WFH, with equipment provided, with regular visits to HO for meetings, training etc. The trend would have continued, but been slower, without Covid.
Far too difficult for JRM to find this out, apparently.
The funny thing is that the Civil Service seems to have been very 'flexible' in the 17th and 18th centuries which he reportedly favours, judging from contemporary accounts ...
It’s a bugger when the parchment gets stuck in the printer. Parliament would be a better place if Rees Mogg worked from home permanently, but I assume he thinks coffee shops in London matter more than coffee shops in Midsomer Norton.
It’s a bugger when the parchment gets stuck in the printer. Parliament would be a better place if Rees Mogg worked from home permanently, but I assume he thinks coffee shops in London matter more than coffee shops in Midsomer Norton.
The Royal Mail stagecoaches on the Great West Road through Bath and past Marlborough do take rather a long time.
He's not daft on this. Mechanics, shop workers, delivery people, manual labourers, factory workers etc don't have the luxury of home working and have the capacity to be unimpressed by wealthy professionals whining about having to go to the office. Tioy voters who recently began to home work aren't likely to switch because of the change in tone
Politics of envy then?
Like much of politics, yes. The same as tax the rich arguments etc
Except the tax money you get off the rich can be spent on useful stuff. And many of the rich would like to see the rich taxed more, myself included, so it's not all about the politics of envy.
You could take everything they have and distribute it if you wanted. The level that is 'rich' and the tax that is 'fair' will very from person to person but usually is 'more than me' for both.
You need to use some objective yardstick for these things. I would use "rich" for the top 10% of the income distribution. 70-90% is "well off"; 30-70% is "middle income" and 0-30% I would call "poor". (Cue lots of people in the 10% claiming not to be rich because of how little money they have left at the end of each month after paying for the mortgage on their huge house, their recent holidays, private school fees etc etc...).
There are also knock on effects of emptying city centres of offices and office workers - from the little sandwich business on the corner to city centre pubs and hospitality to lunchtime shoppers in high street shops.
And of repopulating suburbs and villages with shops, sandwich businesses and sellers of decent coffee for all the people who are now at home in the day rather than absent for 12-14 hours.
Is it likely that people working from home pop out for an hour at lunchtime to buy a sandwich and a cup of coffee?
Sandwich less so, coffee quite often (based on an unrepresentative sample of "people in my team who live walking distance from somewhere to buy coffee). Actually the bigger difference is probably things like local food shops - if you commuted, going to the butcher or fishmonger wasn't an option because they were open 8-4, so it's supermarket or nothing. Now it's possible, which I would have thought would be the dream for the "save the local high street" wing of politics.
How many local high streets sill have a quality butcher, fishmonger or greengrocers? And how will new start ups compete with supermarkets?
The idea that people working from home will be as productive as folk working alongside colleagues (and managers) is obviously laughable - unless they are a novelist or poet.
Whether the politics of pointing this out is smart, I don't know, but most people surely recognise this, even if they are enjoying the freedom and cost-savings of not commuting.
Surprised this is even being debated TBH. But then the entitlement of some people, usually white-collared professionals with handsome pension provision, never ceases to amaze.
I know that industries are all different, but in professional services, where we have the ready metric of chargeable time recorded and costs recovered, productivity is observably higher. I understand that in culture war world something can be objectively true and still "obviously laughable" but the real world picture is more complex. One thing worth remembering is how many of us really worked remotely anyway, because we all travelled to offices and then spent most of the day on calls to people in other offices. There's very little efficiency to that, and a lot of quality of life downside. All that's changed now is that remote working is done at a location of the worker's choosing rather than the employer's/
The notion that people are super productive in offices and don't waste all their time in water cooler chats, tea runs, zoning out on Facebook etc is the laughable thing for me.
The evidence is that the need for more formal collaboration and goal-setting is a huge benefit of WFH. And employees are happier which is well known to correlate with improved productivity.
There are exceptions, and you can do it badly, too. But in general, the data doesn't surprise me at all.
He's not daft on this. Mechanics, shop workers, delivery people, manual labourers, factory workers etc don't have the luxury of home working and have the capacity to be unimpressed by wealthy professionals whining about having to go to the office. Tioy voters who recently began to home work aren't likely to switch because of the change in tone
Politics of envy then?
Like much of politics, yes. The same as tax the rich arguments etc
Except the tax money you get off the rich can be spent on useful stuff. And many of the rich would like to see the rich taxed more, myself included, so it's not all about the politics of envy.
You could take everything they have and distribute it if you wanted. The level that is 'rich' and the tax that is 'fair' will very from person to person but usually is 'more than me' for both.
You need to use some objective yardstick for these things. I would use "rich" for the top 10% of the income distribution. 70-90% is "well off"; 30-70% is "middle income" and 0-30% I would call "poor". (Cue lots of people in the 10% claiming not to be rich because of how little money they have left at the end of each month after paying for the mortgage on their huge house, their recent holidays, private school fees etc etc...).
But we dont. Hence a lot of politics is politics of envy. It's human nature.
All seems a bit out of touch and has the air of 'dead cat' about it.
My current place of work shut the original office and have moved next door, down from 2000+ desks to 3-400 flexible ones. There is no way we can ever fit back in even if we want to.
I've been going in most weeks for a day, but it is dead and feels somewhat futile. Good if the whole team is in, but otherwise just a mild bit of socialising and pondering how much less productive we are in the office.
Downside of WFH for me is I tend to start work earlier and finish later, not really mastered the work life balance bit.
Ta MrB
I was doing that, then I forced myself to go for a walk when I finish work, and tie that as best I can to a given time. Psychologically gives you a “commute” and separation.
Good shout, I might start trying that - seems like an easy fix to try. Cheers.
The idea that people working from home will be as productive as folk working alongside colleagues (and managers) is obviously laughable - unless they are a novelist or poet.
Whether the politics of pointing this out is smart, I don't know, but most people surely recognise this, even if they are enjoying the freedom and cost-savings of not commuting.
Surprised this is even being debated TBH. But then the entitlement of some people, usually white-collared professionals with handsome pension provision, never ceases to amaze.
I know that industries are all different, but in professional services, where we have the ready metric of chargeable time recorded and costs recovered, productivity is observably higher. I understand that in culture war world something can be objectively true and still "obviously laughable" but the real world picture is more complex. One thing worth remembering is how many of us really worked remotely anyway, because we all travelled to offices and then spent most of the day on calls to people in other offices. There's very little efficiency to that, and a lot of quality of life downside. All that's changed now is that remote working is done at a location of the worker's choosing rather than the employer's/
The problem is that some areas of government (local and central) haven't adapted to the new situation. Some parts of the system are still showing as "closed for COVID". Some GPs, for instance.
WFH requires effort from both management and workforce.
Mr. Stocky, been AFK, hence slow reply. Yep, that's the case.
Mr. Dyed, I agree, a hybrid model will work best for many operations/individuals.
Hybrid is the only way I can see that retains the city high street and viability of city centres. If not the next crisis becomes what WILL the government DO about our declining city centre economies?
There are also knock on effects of emptying city centres of offices and office workers - from the little sandwich business on the corner to city centre pubs and hospitality to lunchtime shoppers in high street shops.
And of repopulating suburbs and villages with shops, sandwich businesses and sellers of decent coffee for all the people who are now at home in the day rather than absent for 12-14 hours.
Is it likely that people working from home pop out for an hour at lunchtime to buy a sandwich and a cup of coffee?
Sandwich less so, coffee quite often (based on an unrepresentative sample of "people in my team who live walking distance from somewhere to buy coffee). Actually the bigger difference is probably things like local food shops - if you commuted, going to the butcher or fishmonger wasn't an option because they were open 8-4, so it's supermarket or nothing. Now it's possible, which I would have thought would be the dream for the "save the local high street" wing of politics.
How many local high streets sill have a quality butcher, fishmonger or greengrocers? And how will new start ups compete with supermarkets?
Early days yet but doesn't have to be the old style shops like somerthing at Walmington-on-Sea. For one thing we buy much more from our local fish van as we are at home all the time (edit: when I retired and Mrs C started WFH part time, before the pandemic) - when we were working, we couldn't get to it, or get at a convenient fishmonger at all. Same with the community foodstore - easier to get in during the week. But I think the supermarket run will remain with us.
He's not daft on this. Mechanics, shop workers, delivery people, manual labourers, factory workers etc don't have the luxury of home working and have the capacity to be unimpressed by wealthy professionals whining about having to go to the office. Tioy voters who recently began to home work aren't likely to switch because of the change in tone
Politics of envy then?
Like much of politics, yes. The same as tax the rich arguments etc
Except the tax money you get off the rich can be spent on useful stuff. And many of the rich would like to see the rich taxed more, myself included, so it's not all about the politics of envy.
You could take everything they have and distribute it if you wanted. The level that is 'rich' and the tax that is 'fair' will very from person to person but usually is 'more than me' for both.
You need to use some objective yardstick for these things. I would use "rich" for the top 10% of the income distribution. 70-90% is "well off"; 30-70% is "middle income" and 0-30% I would call "poor". (Cue lots of people in the 10% claiming not to be rich because of how little money they have left at the end of each month after paying for the mortgage on their huge house, their recent holidays, private school fees etc etc...).
But we dont. Hence a lot of politics is politics of envy. It's human nature.
Yes I suppose it is. I don't think in those terms but I guess a lot of people do. Hence the successful Tory attacks on the "liberal metropolitan elite".
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
He's not daft on this. Mechanics, shop workers, delivery people, manual labourers, factory workers etc don't have the luxury of home working and have the capacity to be unimpressed by wealthy professionals whining about having to go to the office. Tioy voters who recently began to home work aren't likely to switch because of the change in tone
Politics of envy then?
Like much of politics, yes. The same as tax the rich arguments etc
Except the tax money you get off the rich can be spent on useful stuff. And many of the rich would like to see the rich taxed more, myself included, so it's not all about the politics of envy.
You could take everything they have and distribute it if you wanted. The level that is 'rich' and the tax that is 'fair' will very from person to person but usually is 'more than me' for both.
You need to use some objective yardstick for these things. I would use "rich" for the top 10% of the income distribution. 70-90% is "well off"; 30-70% is "middle income" and 0-30% I would call "poor". (Cue lots of people in the 10% claiming not to be rich because of how little money they have left at the end of each month after paying for the mortgage on their huge house, their recent holidays, private school fees etc etc...).
But we dont. Hence a lot of politics is politics of envy. It's human nature.
Yes I suppose it is. I don't think in those terms but I guess a lot of people do. Hence the successful Tory attacks on the "liberal metropolitan elite".
That was my point, yes. Both sides engage in this eagerly
On topic. Boris is spot on with suspicions of home working bringing far too many negatives, and the electorate will support him.
More productive or less productive? Those trying to work from home whilst child minding are obviously less productive than both themselves in office without those distractions and a colleague wfh without those distractions. Also depends on tasks. A task needing face-to-face communication is going to be less productive without it.
don’t call it working from home, call it remote working, for then you have people working remotely since year dot you can compare it to. Back in the sixties there was a study of People out and about working remotely fixing office machinery, each knew a different trick the others didn’t. When they all got together in a diner for a meal they shared all these tricks and productivity shot up. If knowledge share drops off due to remote working, it’s a huge hit on productivity that can only be noticed over longer time spans not shorter ones, why? Becuase most studies have innovation is a key part of productivity, and innovation is now proved to being killed by remote working the earlier studies didn’t pick up.
Unions should be wary about it. It can’t be measured solely as working from home getting tasks done versus in office getting tasks done. If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work.
Rees Mogg is winning this argument single handedly, though Boris intervention has helped. Mogg said it’s used for long weekends, Mondays, Fridays, is he wrong? Let’s look at the stat for the days people most work remotely…
For a self-professed Lib Dem, you're awfully fond of echoing the government line of the week on a fairly regular basis.
The latest bit of posturing from Boris and and etiolated tw@t is not only utterly risible, but also utterly weird from a party which profess themselves to trust the market to sort our this kind of issue.
Did you not expect there to be a reasonable possibility of a nanny state, highly interventionist government, when one of your two candidates for Prime Minister at the last election was Jeremy Corbyn?
It's undoubtedly true that Covid has accelerated the move towards WFH. But it hasn't caused it. Flexible working patterns in the Civil Service, for example, started many years ago, particularly for London-based staff. Many colleagues came into London for 1-3 days a week, and worked at home for the rest of the week (obviously only where this was appropriate for the role). My own role was defined as WFH, with equipment provided, with regular visits to HO for meetings, training etc. The trend would have continued, but been slower, without Covid.
Far too difficult for JRM to find this out, apparently.
+1 on COVID accelerating a trend.
One reason that WFH was possible, is that many companies had the setup for this already. Every bank I've done work at has remote login as part of the induction/setup, for example.
I think that where the balance shakes out to will be a bit of a journey. I've seen a lot of younger people who want to go back to work + play. That is, they travel into the city, work, then go out with their friends, network, socialise etc. How will this fit in with the older people with families, space at home, friends in the areas they live?
- Corporate landlords who are seeing their market dry up and blow away - Older people (primarily retired) who go "that's not the way it was when I was growing up/young and is therefore wrong" - Those (often with minimal experience) who assume that everyone will only work when watched like hawks (possibly because that is what they themselves would do).
(Plus a little to those who fetishise life of a century ago, such as JRM who obviously wanted to play at being an executive of the 1920s-1940s and now IS playing at being such. His daftness is simply that of a child who wants to play at "office" and visualised it from an earlier era)
There are issues around home-working, especially for younger workers who have less space and facilities. There are issues around office workers, especially around the commute. Most places are settling into a hybrid working environment, and the three groups I mentioned are simply going to have to accept that.
Years ago I read of an unusual solution to a problem employee. The man was productive but obnoxious. So the company rented an office for just him, away from his co-workers. (This happened, as I recall, in Silicon Valley. No details were given, for obvious reasons.)
That extreme case should remind us that working directly with others can make us more productive -- or less productive, depending. So working from home can help or hinder, depending on the individuals.
He'll be saying he will step down if he hasn't done anything wrong next.
Beergate and Starmer hypocrisy, wasn’t that very important or something? was all the rage two weeks ago, where’s it gone? Should we report it to police as gone missing?
From previous thread: This detail from Wikipedia is too fun not to share: Kamala Harris is a member of the Third Baptist Church of San Francisco. (It's a church with quite a history. https://www.thirdbaptist.org/ )
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
He'll be saying he will step down if he hasn't done anything wrong next.
Beergate and Starmer hypocrisy, wasn’t that very important or something? was all the rage two weeks ago, where’s it gone? Should we report it to police as gone missing?
It hasn't disappeared, like Partygate it will be resolved one way or another when the police finish their snooping around.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Businesses *need* to budget for this, and you cannot do it half-heartedly. This is about a real change-around. You are not *allowing* your staff to WFH, you are *requiring* your staff to WFH - and you have to enable them to do so.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Businesses *need* to budget for this, and you cannot do it half-heartedly. This is about a real change-around. You are not *allowing* your staff to WFH, you are *requiring* your staff to WFH - and you have to enable them to do so.
Finishes laughing.
There are plenty of businesses where the staff get a small laptop, and are told to fight for a desk in the hot desk office. No monitors, etc.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Businesses *need* to budget for this, and you cannot do it half-heartedly. This is about a real change-around. You are not *allowing* your staff to WFH, you are *requiring* your staff to WFH - and you have to enable them to do so.
Finishes laughing.
There are plenty of businesses where the staff get a small laptop, and are told to fight for a desk in the hot desk office. No monitors, etc.
Those guys will see WFH as another opportunity.
Oh, I don't disagree. Most businesses are shit and won't see most of the benefits from enabling remote working because they won't enable remote working.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
How long before the lightbulb goes ping about civil service London Weighting.....
The government shouldn’t be telling companies what to do with their employees re working from home .
So there should be no regulations in this area? Interesting.
Remarkably little. For example - you hunch over a shitty laptop at the dining table. When it's the to sue about your bad back... is the company responsible?
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
Wardrobegate. We demand answers.
First question. If they simply answered surely it would be a brief story quickly forgotten - by not answering the fools have erected a huge sign - LOOK HERE, LOOK AT THIS,
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
Wardrobegate. We demand answers.
First question. If they simply answered surely it would be a brief story quickly forgotten - by not answering the fools have erected a huge sign - LOOK HERE, LOOK AT THIS,
OTOH it could be a cardboard box bus style dead feline/live squirrel.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Was it hovering or how much did you have to lead it?
As I said last night, the market will determine what happens. I think good employees are going to want to wfh 2-3 days a week, and this then broadens the recruitment pool as they will also be willing to travel further. Good and successful employers will embrace this and buy up the good people. Bad employers will not.
As an aside, we’re also about to see Gvt get much worse, as JRM successfully chases out some of the best civil servants (the ones who are most mobile and can get other jobs) with his demoralising bullshit.
I can't help thinking WFH 2-3 days a week is a worst of all worlds outcome. You can't move to a new area, have a much better home. You still have to be tied to the commute.
Employers who embrace 0 days a week in the office, with maybe a 2 days a month catch-up with all staff together (expenses paid) are going to be far more attractive to the best minds. Partly because it says "we trust you".
That's becoming our model: three days of in person every six weeks or so.
That said, I'm not sure it's doing anyone's livers any good.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
If you find yourself on the run, please make your way to Scotland and shoot down every Instagrammer drone too.
Fed up of my walks being accompanied by that endless whine.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
A couple of protection officers. But it isn't exactly the job of those individuals to be wondering about if subsection 28, subparagraph 89 of the COVID laws at that time were breached, depending on how you interrupt the length of the meal, the number of beers etc.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
I wonder how many people working from home are aware of their right to claim part of their energy costs, council tax, etc, against their income tax?
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
I mean the story is already out. A custom built wardrobe was put in overnight. It's not going to be millions of public funds. Huff are hoping for a figure so they can do a full pearl clutch piece. They dont care what the figure is.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
If there's no CAA registration number on it, it doesn't exist...
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
I mean the story is already out. A custom built wardrobe was put in overnight. It's not going to be millions of public funds. Huff are hoping for a figure so they can do a full pearl clutch piece. They dont care what the figure is.
Without a figure we can imagine all sorts going on. Just release the figure, not make it the Secret Wardobe scandal.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
I wonder how many people working from home are aware of their right to claim part of their energy costs, council tax, etc, against their income tax?
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
I wonder how many people working from home are aware of their right to claim part of their energy costs, council tax, etc, against their income tax?
You can't - there is a token £6 per week allowance I believe for working from home.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Amusing, but I suspect that will be their excuse to revoke your shotgun certificate.
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
I mean the story is already out. A custom built wardrobe was put in overnight. It's not going to be millions of public funds. Huff are hoping for a figure so they can do a full pearl clutch piece. They dont care what the figure is.
Without a figure we can imagine all sorts going on. Just release the figure, not make it the Secret Wardobe scandal.
I suppose the calculation is who exactly is going to be wasting much spleen venting on the great wardrobe Profumo affair, so they can afford to irritate the Huff
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
I mean the story is already out. A custom built wardrobe was put in overnight. It's not going to be millions of public funds. Huff are hoping for a figure so they can do a full pearl clutch piece. They dont care what the figure is.
Without a figure we can imagine all sorts going on. Just release the figure, not make it the Secret Wardobe scandal.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Was it hovering or how much did you have to lead it?
Hovering outside the kitchen fucking window. Mrs DA was out and knows nothing about it. It's going to be a lovely surprise for her.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
I wonder how many people working from home are aware of their right to claim part of their energy costs, council tax, etc, against their income tax?
You can't - there is a token £6 per week allowance I believe for working from home.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Was it hovering or how much did you have to lead it?
Hovering outside the kitchen fucking window. Mrs DA was out and knows nothing about it. It's going to be a lovely surprise for her.
Ah, that does put a new complexion on the matter. Quite ironic really though given what you used to jockey.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Amusing, but I suspect that will be their excuse to revoke your shotgun certificate.
Even with a camera on it snooping on Mrs Ace in the bath?
I sense a national test case, and PB celebrity in the dock and on every front page by end of the week.
“I done it for my wife’s honour, and would do it again tomorrow, as every Englishman should have the God given right to. They shalt not covet their neighbours ass with their drone.”
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
It could be that he is that that people believe is a rare thing in politicians - a person with genuine integrity. I think you can probably also list Brown, Major and Thatcher, and perhaps Cameron in that list. It is not as rare as apologists for Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
As I said last night, the market will determine what happens. I think good employees are going to want to wfh 2-3 days a week, and this then broadens the recruitment pool as they will also be willing to travel further. Good and successful employers will embrace this and buy up the good people. Bad employers will not.
As an aside, we’re also about to see Gvt get much worse, as JRM successfully chases out some of the best civil servants (the ones who are most mobile and can get other jobs) with his demoralising bullshit.
I can't help thinking WFH 2-3 days a week is a worst of all worlds outcome. You can't move to a new area, have a much better home. You still have to be tied to the commute.
Employers who embrace 0 days a week in the office, with maybe a 2 days a month catch-up with all staff together (expenses paid) are going to be far more attractive to the best minds. Partly because it says "we trust you".
That's becoming our model: three days of in person every six weeks or so.
That said, I'm not sure it's doing anyone's livers any good.
Scrolling quickly through the thread I thought that said "three days in prison every six weeks or so".
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
How long before the lightbulb goes ping about civil service London Weighting.....
Has the government not already mentioned this? In any case, we have discussed this before with regard to the private sector who even before Covid were moving jobs out of London and even out of the country so they could pay lower wages.
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
Wardrobegate. We demand answers.
First question. If they simply answered surely it would be a brief story quickly forgotten - by not answering the fools have erected a huge sign - LOOK HERE, LOOK AT THIS,
I saw a man pushing a lion and a witch into a wardrobe. I asked him what he was doing, he said "Narnia business".
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Was it hovering or how much did you have to lead it?
Hovering outside the kitchen fucking window. Mrs DA was out and knows nothing about it. It's going to be a lovely surprise for her.
Has she not noticed the massive shotgun hole in the shattered kitchen window yet?
Anyway, good on you. What was it doing spying through your kitchen window. ****. 'em!
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
It could be that he is that that people believe is a rare thing in politicians - a person with genuine integrity. I think you can probably also list Brown, Major and Thatcher, and perhaps Cameron in that list. It is not as rare as apologists for Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Brown had integrity. You are having a laugh right. A man who knew nothing about 2 guys sitting right next to him organising disgusting smear campaigns.
Anyway, Starmer appears to have reversed ferreted already (I presume his team realised they left themselves in a dodgy position). Only an FPN is apparently really when you have done something wrong, despite Big Dom being a well known example of the plod judging he did something wrong, but no FPN, and of course Starmer was all over that inconsistency.
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
Apologies if I'm getting my scandals mixed up, but surely that won't wash since, I believe, plod were there?
Yes. Security detail were at Partygate and Beergate. No one can get away with lying.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
It had to be reasonably necessary for work. They could, for example, have given everyone an hour to go to a takeout or eat alone outdoors at a pub etc. Inconvenient, but that's what the rest of us were stuck with. Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there. 'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse. Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
He's not daft on this. Mechanics, shop workers, delivery people, manual labourers, factory workers etc don't have the luxury of home working and have the capacity to be unimpressed by wealthy professionals whining about having to go to the office. Tioy voters who recently began to home work aren't likely to switch because of the change in tone
Politics of envy then?
Like much of politics, yes. The same as tax the rich arguments etc
Except the tax money you get off the rich can be spent on useful stuff. And many of the rich would like to see the rich taxed more, myself included, so it's not all about the politics of envy.
You could take everything they have and distribute it if you wanted. The level that is 'rich' and the tax that is 'fair' will very from person to person but usually is 'more than me' for both.
You need to use some objective yardstick for these things. I would use "rich" for the top 10% of the income distribution. 70-90% is "well off"; 30-70% is "middle income" and 0-30% I would call "poor". (Cue lots of people in the 10% claiming not to be rich because of how little money they have left at the end of each month after paying for the mortgage on their huge house, their recent holidays, private school fees etc etc...).
The bottom 5-10% need a separate label from the rest of your band. The gap between those is bigger than between well off and middle income.
Also income and assets are no longer as closely correlated as they used to be, which confuses things. A middle income fiftysomething is not just richer than current a well off twentysomething (both in your scales) but will also on average end up as relatively richer at retirement, as they had access to housing assets at much lower prices relative to earnings, and were taxed less.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Amusing, but I suspect that will be their excuse to revoke your shotgun certificate.
Even with a camera on it snooping on Mrs Ace in the bath?
If they had been doing that then it wouldn't have been the drone that was getting shot.
Further to my first post on this thread, a slightly less angry response.
I think WFH has been one of THE great success stories to come out of covid. Not necessarily that it should be considered all the time. Of course social interaction is great and there are plenty of industries which do need face to face or hand to till action.
But for the most part being able to work from home at least some of the time has revolutionised people's lives and, as mentioned by others below, has the capacity to breathe new life into communities far from the cities. I am by and large far more productive working from home. Yes I get up and make cups of coffee or tea but so what?
It's threatening to the powers-that-be because it's a huge social revolution. But it's one arguably brought about by brilliant internet connectivity spreading around the world. Covid was merely the catalyst.
This attack on WFH is a reactionary and retrograde step by Boris and chums.
Why should Unions and Party of working people not be wary of it? If productivity appears up with home workers it may be because workers slip into longer working hours, the pay off is burn out and mental health, not getting their brains or bodies enough break away from work?
Other issues -
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair. - Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office. - Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
Yes. Already in this thread, at this first glimmer of hybrid working “the office has downsized from 4000 to 400 desks, we can’t go back in.”
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
How long before the lightbulb goes ping about civil service London Weighting.....
Custom and practice. It’s getting a bit late in the day. An equal pay claim the other way round, however….
Must be confident he isn't going to even get his wrist slapped.
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
It could be that he is that that people believe is a rare thing in politicians - a person with genuine integrity. I think you can probably also list Brown, Major and Thatcher, and perhaps Cameron in that list. It is not as rare as apologists for Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Brown had integrity. You are having a laugh right. A man who knew nothing about 2 guys sitting right next to him organising disgusting smear campaigns.
OK, strike him from the list. I was trying to have a bit of balance. Robin Cook then. Ugly fecker, but he had integrity.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Was it hovering or how much did you have to lead it?
Hovering outside the kitchen fucking window. Mrs DA was out and knows nothing about it. It's going to be a lovely surprise for her.
I thought a jar of picked tomatoes (or, if you haven't got any of those, a jar of pickled gherkins or onions) was the MANPAD de choix for this kind of situation.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Amusing, but I suspect that will be their excuse to revoke your shotgun certificate.
Even with a camera on it snooping on Mrs Ace in the bath?
If they had been doing that then it wouldn't have been the drone that was getting shot.
You'd kill your own wife, just because someone else had seen her naked???
I'm unable to report facts or figures, I'm a newshound!
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
If, as you imply, the wardrobe is unimportant, why is the government set on keeping it secret?
I mean the story is already out. A custom built wardrobe was put in overnight. It's not going to be millions of public funds. Huff are hoping for a figure so they can do a full pearl clutch piece. They dont care what the figure is.
Without a figure we can imagine all sorts going on. Just release the figure, not make it the Secret Wardobe scandal.
I suppose the calculation is who exactly is going to be wasting much spleen venting on the great wardrobe Profumo affair, so they can afford to irritate the Huff
Narniagate as Blanche said, there is something obviously special about this wardrobe. It’s had a portal installed, probably to the off license.
I shot down a drone that some arsehole was flying over our property at the weekend so I am fully expecting a visit from the Old Bill at some point. If I disappear it's because the WiFi is shit in HMP Frankland. (MANPADS employed: Adler A110, 24" barrel, #5 steel shot)
Amusing, but I suspect that will be their excuse to revoke your shotgun certificate.
Even with a camera on it snooping on Mrs Ace in the bath?
If they had been doing that then it wouldn't have been the drone that was getting shot.
Intrigued that you used steel shot. Is your garden an SSSI?
Comments
The first of my Himalayan poppies has flowered. Look at that exquisite blue. And there are more about to flower.
Plus the geums and clematis are really showing off.
A lot of it is spending on things instead of the office space - meetups, co-working spaces or a stipend for junior staff whose living space is unsuitable for home working, these kinds of things.
I'm doing a bit of a work collaboratively with a colleague this afternoon and I'm waiting for them to get back from lunch
And an arch capitalist, to boot.
The level that is 'rich' and the tax that is 'fair' will very from person to person but usually is 'more than me' for both.
https://mobile.twitter.com/dknott8/status/1402229894419976195
Parliament would be a better place if Rees Mogg worked from home permanently, but I assume he thinks coffee shops in London matter more than coffee shops in Midsomer Norton.
Mr. Dyed, I agree, a hybrid model will work best for many operations/individuals.
(Cue lots of people in the 10% claiming not to be rich because of how little money they have left at the end of each month after paying for the mortgage on their huge house, their recent holidays, private school fees etc etc...).
The evidence is that the need for more formal collaboration and goal-setting is a huge benefit of WFH. And employees are happier which is well known to correlate with improved productivity.
There are exceptions, and you can do it badly, too. But in general, the data doesn't surprise me at all.
Cheers.
WFH requires effort from both management and workforce.
I have a scoop - the cabinet office have not confirmed to me the price or colour of Boris Johnson's pants and whether they are tax payer funded
I honestly though that was going to be the politically convenient fudge for everybody. Plod say looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules. Then, Starmer gets to play man of integrity card.
One reason that WFH was possible, is that many companies had the setup for this already. Every bank I've done work at has remote login as part of the induction/setup, for example.
I think that where the balance shakes out to will be a bit of a journey. I've seen a lot of younger people who want to go back to work + play. That is, they travel into the city, work, then go out with their friends, network, socialise etc. How will this fit in with the older people with families, space at home, friends in the areas they live?
- Corporate landlords who are seeing their market dry up and blow away
- Older people (primarily retired) who go "that's not the way it was when I was growing up/young and is therefore wrong"
- Those (often with minimal experience) who assume that everyone will only work when watched like hawks (possibly because that is what they themselves would do).
(Plus a little to those who fetishise life of a century ago, such as JRM who obviously wanted to play at being an executive of the 1920s-1940s and now IS playing at being such. His daftness is simply that of a child who wants to play at "office" and visualised it from an earlier era)
There are issues around home-working, especially for younger workers who have less space and facilities. There are issues around office workers, especially around the commute. Most places are settling into a hybrid working environment, and the three groups I mentioned are simply going to have to accept that.
That extreme case should remind us that working directly with others can make us more productive -- or less productive, depending. So working from home can help or hinder, depending on the individuals.
Modern journalistic priorities.
- Companies push the cost of the office on the worker. Bring your own desk. bring your own laptop. Bring your own chair.
- Some people can't afford enough space to have a home office.
- Next step is "if you don't live in London, why are we paying London rate?"
I'm alright. I am in hard core IT, so I have a very high end computer to start with.
Plus I work for the high end white collar outfits. The place I'm working at sent an Addison Lea delivery at the start of the pandemic - I could have had my entire office setup sent hime, for free. Including standing desk, £800 office chair, monitors etc etc. For the majority of the working population, that is a WTF?!? more than WFH.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/will-work-from-home-work-forever-ep-464/
That's not a garden, this is a garden (Tresco, Scillies)
There are plenty of businesses where the staff get a small laptop, and are told to fight for a desk in the hot desk office. No monitors, etc.
Those guys will see WFH as another opportunity.
Nobody seems worried about that.
Whose paying the heating and electric bills for the 4000 now?
“Sod big government, the market is deciding.”
The Unions and Labour Party and their supporters on here are fools - longer hours, pay privileges lost, no clear head change from work, mental health, all the work costs piled on the workers, passive upskilling workers need killed stone dead. Meanwhile Boris and Mogg are sticking up for the workers of this country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Ygnf1obA4
It is not just partygate and beergate.
First question. If they simply answered surely it would be a brief story quickly forgotten - by not answering the fools have erected a huge sign - LOOK HERE, LOOK AT THIS,
That said, I'm not sure it's doing anyone's livers any good.
Fed up of my walks being accompanied by that endless whine.
Huff are hoping for a figure so they can do a full pearl clutch piece. They dont care what the figure is.
Except possibly the police.
“ looks like there was probably a minor breach, but even if they had known about it at the time, they would have just advised how to ensure better adherence to the rules.”
so what you thinking was the minor breach? Rules for mixing indoors not same as partygate, all they need to at currygate is isay they worked through takeaway and on afterwards, they don’t even have to prove it, it had to be proved they didn’t - sounds like they did or they didn’t, what can be a minor breach of those rules? Not keeping two poppadoms apart?
I sense a national test case, and PB celebrity in the dock and on every front page by end of the week.
“I done it for my wife’s honour, and would do it again tomorrow, as every Englishman should have the God given right to. They shalt not covet their neighbours ass with their drone.”
Anyway, good on you. What was it doing spying through your kitchen window. ****. 'em!
Anyway, Starmer appears to have reversed ferreted already (I presume his team realised they left themselves in a dodgy position). Only an FPN is apparently really when you have done something wrong, despite Big Dom being a well known example of the plod judging he did something wrong, but no FPN, and of course Starmer was all over that inconsistency.
Hence they needed to be doing something as part of the 15 person meal workwise that required them to all be there.
'It wouldn't have made sense to all go off on our own' is not an excuse.
Which is the point- the rules he eagerly supported were complete bollocks
Also income and assets are no longer as closely correlated as they used to be, which confuses things. A middle income fiftysomething is not just richer than current a well off twentysomething (both in your scales) but will also on average end up as relatively richer at retirement, as they had access to housing assets at much lower prices relative to earnings, and were taxed less.