Employees Are Quitting Instead of Giving Up Working from Home

[CTinline-six]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

It is much, much easier to keep an eye on people, even your peers keep you in check.

I'm not sure what field of work you are in, but in IT it's pretty obvious when people are/are not getting their work done from home. If they aren't getting the work done, they won't be working for the company. Also, sending inappropriate messages to female coworkers would be grounds for immediate dismissal. If an employee needs to be "watched" in order to be kept in check, it sounds like the company standards are too lax.

[bimmerfrk]

I work at a law firm we are going 100% hybrid in sept. No one cares where you work as long as sh*t gets done.

[Nachbar]

Originally Posted by ImpressionS

I feel like hybrid model is best, going forward i think a lot of companies will do couple days a week for the foreseeable future. Given the high cost of rent, desk sharing seems to be a trend even prior to the who covid thing

This. I work from home 80 % since 15 years.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by CTinline-six

I'm not sure what field of work you are in, but in IT it's pretty obvious when people are/are not getting their work done from home.

These are entry level staff, call centre positions. Some folks transitioned just fine, others have been an absolute shit show to manage.

[Kolyan2k]

Working from home was nice.....haven't seen a day in traffic since covid and wife was doing home duties at home now traffic is climbing back up and wife back to office since June 1st even though she seemed to get more done at home (employer doesn't give a shit)

[ASAP]

WFH needs to be embraced and immediately for the good of the people and just society in general...

A couple of things-

1) My company transitioned to WFH at the beginning of the pandemic, now the company will be 50% WFH but probably even more.

2) The company has seen productivity go up since this has happened.

3) If your job is one of those that you can do from home but don't and instead slack around, chances are very high you don't have a real job...i.e. probably shouldn't be spending money on anything on Bimmerpost. With my specific job, if I slack for a week, things will spiral out of control so quick that multiple Million sales losses may occur.

4) Partial WFH is not the same thing as 100% WFH which offers employees full flexibility to live wherever they wish (this is key and is chief benefit of true WFH).

My advice for most employers and employees (if you can), get on the WFH bandwagon or you will be left behind by someone more talented that does WFH whose location is irrelevant. If you are are holding office overhead, your competition will save in that area vs you.

As far as a society, office jobs promote-

1)traffic
2) loss in time during commute
3) pollution and
4) housing crises (more commercial office area)

Just my thoughts... get on board or be behind sooner than later. If sleepy joe was a real leader he would already be offering tax credits for companies that promote wfh instead of blowing money on nonsense left and right.

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

These are entry level staff, call centre positions. Some folks transitioned just fine, others have been an absolute shit show to manage.

Thats the key thing here.

I am assuming that most of us on here are not the entry level people that need supervision and guidance to make sure their work is getting done and are able to do well in a wfh scenario.

For management that have been in their field for a while and know what they need to do to succeed, they probably dont need to be in an office all day, every day, but lower level employees arent all created equal.

As to the idea that if an employee is slacking off while wfh and the company should move on from them if they cant be trusted to get their work done, do people forget there is a shortage of workers right now?

[Alfisti]

Yeah at entry level there is a massive shortage. We are paying $16 (Canada, $14 in USA), WFH, no experience, no sales select your shifts each week etc and I need 150 people I just cannot find.

At some point the product we produce is not worth it to the client if we pay $20+, it just isn't and I don't blame them. Hate to say it but offshore may be the answer because i just cannot staff.

[dscabra]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Yeah at entry level there is a massive shortage. We are paying $16 (Canada, $14 in USA), WFH, no experience, no sales select your shifts each week etc and I need 150 people I just cannot find.

At some point the product we produce is not worth it to the client if we pay $20+, it just isn't and I don't blame them. Hate to say it but offshore may be the answer because i just cannot staff.

This while I see the same "jobless" family panhandling on the same street corner for the past two-plus years not 100 yards from several businesses with "Hiring Now" signs in the windows.

[Alfisti]

To be clear I am not expecting people to feed their families on $14. We usually hire students and second HH income types who need flexibility and 20 to 25 hrs a week.

But the well is dry, getting absolutely no one.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by TommyG-inFlaNow

This blows my mind. In my industry (Autobody) dealing with insurance reps working from home has been a disaster. What would normally take 1-2 days to get approvals on a claim with the big carriers (GEICO, Progressive, SF) is now taking 7+ days.
No matter when you call, reps never answer their phones. They take days to call back and its just been terrible...

Those reps should be fired and replaced with reps that have the wherewithal to adapt to a modern workflow. We shouldn't stymie something that improves the quality of life and work for so many people because a few underachievers can't get their shit together.

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by bimmerfrk

I work at a law firm we are going 100% hybrid in sept. No one cares where you work as long as [billing] gets done.

i translated for them

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

It is much, much easier to keep an eye on people, even your peers keep you in check.

If babysitting is a major component of the manager's jobs, then the problem is with the managers. Managing is not babysitting. The laziness and ineptitude of the managers to create and manage a team without babysitting is not a reason to revert to an outdated work model.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by jmg

If babysitting is a major component of the manager's jobs, then the problem is with the managers. Managing is not babysitting. The laziness and ineptitude of the managers to create and manage a team without babysitting is not a reason to revert to an outdated work model.

This type of generalisation amazes me. People slack, they just will, especially entry level types.

[VChenz]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This type of generalisation amazes me. People slack, they just will, especially entry level types.

"you get what you pay for"

[TheWatchGuy]

Originally Posted by jmg

Those reps should be fired and replaced with reps that have the wherewithal to adapt to a modern workflow. We shouldn't stymie something that improves the quality of life and work for so many people because a few underachievers can't get their shit together.

Originally Posted by jmg

If babysitting is a major component of the manager's jobs, then the problem is with the managers. Managing is not babysitting. The laziness and ineptitude of the managers to create and manage a team without babysitting is not a reason to revert to an outdated work model.

Originally Posted by VChenz

"you get what you pay for"

I can tell you guys dont hire/manage entry level positions.

There has been a shortage of workers for a while now, and an even greater shortage of quality workers. For every 1 good entry level guy i hire, theres 2-3 trash ones that either take a lot of work to get to competent, or just dont last long. Unfortunately, despite paying more than most basic jobs, its still a pain in the ass to get people to work.

Churning through employees is not a good model for success, unless you have an unlimited supply of potential employees or you have a very small need for entry level people. It takes time and money to train a new employee. Time and money that can go towards improving other areas of the business including retaining and advancing your good employees.

[damnitBobby]

I wish I could work from home but I'm in healthcare.

For those that sit behind a desk all day yeah I think the best solution would be a hybrid approach. Go to workplace for 1-2 days a week and work from home the rest.

[tdott]

Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy

Time and money that can go towards improving other areas of the business including retaining and advancing your good employees.

Doesn't sound like there is enough delegation of responsibilities if training a new hire is taking away from other area of the business and advancing the company.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by tdott

Doesn't sound like there is enough delegation of responsibilities if training a new hire is taking away from other area of the business and advancing the company. ]

What kind of horseshit is that? Everything costs money, if you are delegating supervisors to manage entry level workers then yeah it affects other areas because it is a cost item that could be used elsewhere.

jesus.

[chassis]

The "entry level" comments are interesting.

I think what "entry level" means in this thread is "no education and minimum hourly wage less than full workweek" positions and workers who take them. The employees are bottom of the barrel because the jobs themselves are bottom of the barrel. Birds of a feather stick together.

College educated, indeed master's degree educated, "entry level" professionals bust their stones day in and day out when starting their careers, as a general rule. And get paid well.

[ASAP]

I think as far as entry level positions... you do really get what you pay for.

Lets say I pay someone $12 an hr to do a job which is a whopping $25k a year... aka below poverty line... i genuinely have no expectations of them outside of basic button clicking... i dont expect much loyalty from them either. It sucks and is what our country has gotten used to but it is what it is.

Now, paying these people $15 an hr... thats when shit will really hit the fan.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by muniz_ri

All of that makes complete sense. But I think that the key point in the discussion is having the "option" to work remotely, if the type of work can be performed remotely, as opposed to requiring everyone back in the office for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

Again, I believe that just having the option will be more and more important to the workforce and organizations will have to get on board if they want to attract and retain top talent.

100% this, I can’t work from home, but my wife can. She works for a Fortune 500 company and they are trying to get everyone back into the office. Even though they don’t have the space and are laying off people left and right to cut costs. They want her to go to a floor and just find a desk with her laptop, mind you she is a very high level manager and the things she is discussing shouldn’t be “out in the open” etc. None of her team is in the area and are scattered around the country. They have lost a ton of top talent because of this and my wife has updated her Linkedln/resume for the first time in years. It makes no sense for her to sit in traffic for two hours a day going to and from an office that has nobody in it that she works with/plus other problems. The idiocy is off the charts.

Bottom line is as usual with life a one style option doesn’t work for everyone or every company. If it works to do WFH, hybrid or you need to be in the office than do it. This is where good leaders shine and others obviously don’t because they have some bullshit synergy philosophy that doesn’t apply to everyone and they just try to force it.