I was so excited when this came out originally. Then I saw how useless it was.
Basically, you had a right to request remote working but the employer had a right to say no. That was it.
Many many people have been forced back to the office for no reason and this law could have helped if it was of any use.
Theydontlikeitupthem on
Toothless is the correct word, there isn’t and will never be policies/legislation that a company has to allow staff remote working if they do not want to, this is basically saying the have to give a longer answer to accompany their refusal.
Future_Jackfruit5360 on
If they won’t legislate properly, why not incentivize some how. Offer a company something if they can offer remote work etc.
ParaMike46 on
Something needs to be done because traffic is unberable and commuting by public transport is soul destroying.
It make no sense for folks to carry their laptops from home to the office to do the same thing
Jester-252 on
Toothless tiger isn’t as useless as people think..
That kitty still has claws
Willing-Departure115 on
At a practical level, it is nearly impossible for government to get into the middle of deciding who should get WFH and who shouldn’t. You couldn’t write regulations long enough to cover every circumstance – “Mary is an accountant and can clearly do her core duties from home, but it’s a 5 person business so she’s also effectively the receptionist.” How do you mandate she should have WFH?
The best the legislation can do is nudge, and by forcing companies to be procedurally more careful in how they make the decision – with better documentation – the government will effectively nudge companies to say “Sure, fuck it, give them more WFH so we don’t get caught down the WRC.”
I think the levels of WFH we saw at the tail end of the pandemic were great. I can see why some businesses want more work from office, and I can’t see why others want it 100%. But fundamentally, how can government dictate the terms and conditions around place of employment like this where you cannot simply say “everyone can wfh” and need to legislate for every type of business and circumstance.
98Kane on
This is all for show. The government themselves are pushing office workers back to the office slowly but surely.
Too much money tied up in their mates’ investment portfolio of office space.
keanehoodies on
Would make a massive difference on traffic if WFH was distributed equally across the week. Most hybrid companies all come in on wednesdays for example/
Archamasse on
One of the most annoying outcomes of Covid was a load of places taking advantage of WFH to sell off or let go of office space, only to then randomly decide to start pullling people back in to the now far more cramped and shittier facilities they had left. There are people coming to my office just to use their laptop in the canteen.
LordyIHopeThereIsPie on
Govt departments should lead. Know so many who want to and could work fully remote but management insists on 3+ days a week in offices in Dublin City.
10 commenti
I was so excited when this came out originally. Then I saw how useless it was.
Basically, you had a right to request remote working but the employer had a right to say no. That was it.
Many many people have been forced back to the office for no reason and this law could have helped if it was of any use.
Toothless is the correct word, there isn’t and will never be policies/legislation that a company has to allow staff remote working if they do not want to, this is basically saying the have to give a longer answer to accompany their refusal.
If they won’t legislate properly, why not incentivize some how. Offer a company something if they can offer remote work etc.
Something needs to be done because traffic is unberable and commuting by public transport is soul destroying.
It make no sense for folks to carry their laptops from home to the office to do the same thing
Toothless tiger isn’t as useless as people think..
That kitty still has claws
At a practical level, it is nearly impossible for government to get into the middle of deciding who should get WFH and who shouldn’t. You couldn’t write regulations long enough to cover every circumstance – “Mary is an accountant and can clearly do her core duties from home, but it’s a 5 person business so she’s also effectively the receptionist.” How do you mandate she should have WFH?
The best the legislation can do is nudge, and by forcing companies to be procedurally more careful in how they make the decision – with better documentation – the government will effectively nudge companies to say “Sure, fuck it, give them more WFH so we don’t get caught down the WRC.”
I think the levels of WFH we saw at the tail end of the pandemic were great. I can see why some businesses want more work from office, and I can’t see why others want it 100%. But fundamentally, how can government dictate the terms and conditions around place of employment like this where you cannot simply say “everyone can wfh” and need to legislate for every type of business and circumstance.
This is all for show. The government themselves are pushing office workers back to the office slowly but surely.
Too much money tied up in their mates’ investment portfolio of office space.
Would make a massive difference on traffic if WFH was distributed equally across the week. Most hybrid companies all come in on wednesdays for example/
One of the most annoying outcomes of Covid was a load of places taking advantage of WFH to sell off or let go of office space, only to then randomly decide to start pullling people back in to the now far more cramped and shittier facilities they had left. There are people coming to my office just to use their laptop in the canteen.
Govt departments should lead. Know so many who want to and could work fully remote but management insists on 3+ days a week in offices in Dublin City.