So Becky says her pal gets the lunch delivered every day.
Why is it Ok if the employer is paying but makes her lazy if not.
What are you making Becky's statement mean?
Working from home clarified
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
Why is it Ok if the employer is paying but makes her lazy if not.
What are you making Becky's statement mean?
You're reading too much into my post.
If it's upsetting you I withdraw the comment unreservedly and offer my unconditional apology to the unnamed stranger Becky mentioned and to Becky for the mental anguish I caused.
Last edited:
Paid by the employer, delivered to employees wfh. If she wants to buy lunch, there is a list of local places where they get 25% off.
My brother works for a large financial company. They are not renewing / opting out of 50% of office leases so when staff do go back it won't be 5 days and will invole hot desking.
In these situations the company is clearly transferring costs to the employee. It would seem reasonable that they pay something per day to staff wfh.
In these situations the company is clearly transferring costs to the employee. It would seem reasonable that they pay something per day to staff wfh.
Your reading of the situation is all wrong. The employers are clearly transferring savings to their Shareholders/Management
It can be both.Your reading of the situation is all wrong. The employers are clearly transferring savings to their Shareholders/Management
This will be a very mixed bag, great for some, good for others, poor to terrible for more. For an employee was spending 90+ minutes a day commuting, their work week just got a lot shorter for the same pay! Utilities will cost more, but some families will no longer need a second car, childcare might become simpler,
The company I work for is also cutting office space while taking on more staff, they're still trying to work out the details, but so far are saying anyone who really wants to be in the office will have that choice. If more people chose that than there is seating available will be when it gets interesting.
The company I work for is also cutting office space while taking on more staff, they're still trying to work out the details, but so far are saying anyone who really wants to be in the office will have that choice. If more people chose that than there is seating available will be when it gets interesting.
Those who have small kids or kids with special needs at home/ are living in a small apartment or house share or have other constraints will probably prefer to go to the office which is fine if that option remains available. I've always worked on the basis that you can't change an employees T's & C's without their agreement. Obviously only the most bearded of the Brethren would object to changes to avoid closure or keep people safe but companies shouldn't treat this as a quick way to take out cost.
We take on graduates and staff from abroad, I can't imagine working from home would be desirable for many in that community either!
Absolutely agree. There will always be the few who do try to exploit any situation, but they usually suffer in industries where there is sufficient demand that employees can easily move.
They shouldn't, but they will.
I'm all for the solidarity being shown between employers and employees with flexible working arrangements facilitating each other as much as they can during a national health crisis.
But when it's over, I assume within my lifetime but not taking anything for granted, then the real weighing up of the pros and cons will have to be scrutinised.
Things like not having to travel to work will be sold as a benefit bestowed by an employer to an employee, but it is not, as generally the cost of travelling to work is a cost borne by the employee.
Companies will save a tidy packet on office space rent, but what price is the space being utilised in a private residence?
If people can work remotely, from their own homes, is the office space in a private residence the same in D4 as in Leitrim?
Interesting times ahead.
Could a hierarchy form where workers who work on site are deemed more important and WFH could become a way for companies to gradually ease out workers that are not really fundamental to the business any longer. Obviously this is not a factor now as most office based staff are WFH.
We've had varying degrees of WFH for years and you do see that, but generally just from poor managers who like to have someone close by who can step in and answer questions they should be able to answer themselves.
Don't see this happening. From working in tech I see people with years of in depth knowledge and experience working from home. There are also people on site who do basic unskilled work. The WFH people are much more valuable to the company. The location from which you work from is less important than the value you can provide to the employer and the ease with which you could be replaced.
WFH is a benefit to a lot of employees though and it's really not so much the monitory cost of a commute. My employer does not encourage wfh and only facilitates it if the employee requests it. They value the presence and social side of work. Of course I suspect if the finance department says it's too dear they would think otherwise.
Interesting post. Your correct the costs associated with travelling to the office are all on the employee, commute time, lunches etc. The employer isn't allowing the employee to work from home out of good will. There may be some initial costs taken on by the employer eg. laptop and mobile but they will be offset pretty quickly if office space can be reduced.
While I have made savings by wfh short term. I'm in a one bed apartment with my girlfriend. Its really not sustainable long term to be working in the kitchen / living room. Renting a two bed of the same standard would probably cost 500e more wiping out any savings we are making.
The issue for the employer is productivity; will their organisation will be as productive with everyone working from home and if it drops can they restructure/invest/train to get it back to where it was. While rent and rates etc are high they probably don't outweigh a well structured business model.
I completely agree that it's not sustainable for a couple in a one-bed apartment and if small children are in the mix it's a disaster.
Returning to this having been clarified - can anyone advise whereabouts in Form 11 one is supposed to claim this? I can only find details on the Revenue site about putting it under Other PAYE Expenses for MyAccount, but nothing about how to claim it if you have income other than your main PAYE salary and thus fall under the Income Tax set-up instead. My best guess is under "Allowable Deductions Incurred in Employment" > "Expenses, other than Flat Rate Expenses, paid by the claimant wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the duties of the employment or office." Can anyone confirm this?
- Status