Are you going to post your old fence on kijiji for $10/lf to see if someone will haul it away?And I'm planning on building a new fence!
No access to Home Depot, hammers, and saws from 9-5 should help lumber.More commuting equals less time to work on construction projects equals lower lumber price?
I did not consider that's even an option....Are you going to post your old fence on kijiji for $10/lf to see if someone will haul it away?
I don't think the length was the primary factor. Two weeks in, employees discovered the joy of not commuting and businesses saw productivity did not go in the crapper (for the most part). It's hard to go back once you have experienced the change. Obviously, the longer it drags out, the more some employees will dig in their heels but I suspect after the first hit, may employees were not going back full-time. They would be happy to look for an alternate employer that is wfh most of the time.permanent alteration to the office workplace dynamic as they let this go for too long.
BB
Depends on the business, job and the controls/oversight. I've seen the opposite where some employees are able to bring down their productivity to near nonexistant levels successfully because you cannot see what they are doing. All of this is nuance to specifics though but the oversight and the controls need to be overhauled for an unsupervised environment. Some companies/jobs pivot to WFH better than others, where as others do not.businesses saw productivity did not go in the crapper (for the most part).
I agree, it's not universal. For most paper pushing jobs, especially those with easy trackable metrics (eg billable hours, sales volume, reviews per day, etc) spending 25% of the time you spend at work sitting in the car is not justified for most people. Hell, a reasonable compromise could be for the employee to increase output by 10%. They need less hours per day dedicated to work and the employer gets more productivity.Depends on the business, job and the controls/oversight. I've seen the opposite where some employees are able to bring down their productivity to near nonexistant levels successfully because you cannot see what they are doing. All of this is nuance to specifics though but the oversight and the controls need to be overhauled for an unsupervised environment. Some companies/jobs pivot to WFH better than others, where as others do not.
That falls into the same school of thought of taking a pay cut for the "privilege" of WFH, and I'm not really a fanI agree, it's not universal. For most paper pushing jobs, especially those with easy trackable metrics (eg billable hours, sales volume, reviews per day, etc) spending 25% of the time you spend at work sitting in the car is not justified for most people. Hell, a reasonable compromise could be for the employee to increase output by 10%. They need less hours per day dedicated to work and the employer gets more productivity.
That falls into the same school of thought of taking a pay cut for the "privilege" of WFH, and I'm not really a fan
While I'm not a fan of it, it seems to be supported by law (assuming you were hired under the old regime). You signed up to show up daily at location x. Removing the need to go to location x daily was a benefit to you. The employer can choose to alter compensation so they share in the benefit. I don't know if anyone has pushed it yet or if they were just theoretical discussions though.That falls into the same school of thought of taking a pay cut for the "privilege" of WFH, and I'm not really a fan
While I'm not a fan of it, it seems to be supported by law (assuming you were hired under the old regime). You signed up to show up daily at location x. Removing the need to go to location x daily was a benefit to you. The employer can choose to alter compensation so they share in the benefit. I don't know if anyone has pushed it yet or if they were just theoretical discussions though.
Sadly, for many, the answer to that question is stupidity. Many people feel that the only way to manage is to be constantly breathing down peoples necks. Wfh prevents this so instead of adapting their management style, they force everyone else to do it their way. At a past employer, we had one employee that commuted three+ hours to work four hours on friday. I tried to convince company to let him work from home one day a week. You should have seen the sparkle in the managers eyes when they shot down that idea. F them. I left shortly after.Why would employers want employees to commute to work?
Sadly, for many, the answer to that question is stupidity. Many people feel that the only way to manage is to be constantly breathing down peoples necks. Wfh prevents this so instead of adapting their management style, they force everyone else to do it their way. At a past employer, we had one employee that commuted three+ hours to work four hours on friday. I tried to convince company to let him work from home one day a week. You should have seen the sparkle in the managers eyes when they shot down that idea. F them. I left shortly after.
Up till mid pandemic I was in banking, my campus sent more than 6000 people to WFH. They all had easy-to-measure metrics and activity monitoring so it didn't change much for them other than eliminating the commute. Productivity surged for the first year, an unintended benefit, that came about due to a huge reduction in vacancy (sickdays).I agree, it's not universal. For most paper pushing jobs, especially those with easy trackable metrics (eg billable hours, sales volume, reviews per day, etc) spending 25% of the time you spend at work sitting in the car is not justified for most people. Hell, a reasonable compromise could be for the employee to increase output by 10%. They need less hours per day dedicated to work and the employer gets more productivity.
See that is bollocks.If you worked from home in 2021 don't forget to fill out form T777 when you do your taxes, you can claim $500.