Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Some jobs I agree can be done from home with zero impact, but these tend to be of the more transactional variety. As soon as you start needing in depth discussions, idea generation, talking through options, influencing, persuading etc remote working quickly become less and less effective.
With respect, as an IT professional (analyst/developer basically) who has worked remotely for about 9 years now, this is twaddle. You can do a lot over Teams with a screenshare, and if you do need an in-person workshop (which is sometimes necessary) that can be arranged as needed without the need for people to be sat in the office coding or writing documentation when they could do it at home. It also gives more flexibility of staff allocation - you can put the right people on the right projects without having to consider whether they're based nearby or not.
This is what people mean by blended working - you go and physically meet people when there is a benefit to doing so, but don't waste time and money engaging in "presenteeism".
I realise JRM isn’t everyones’ cup of tea - he isn’t mine for that matter - but once that’s put aside I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the message here. It’s entirely consistent with the government’s “back to normal” agenda which I am 100% in favour of.
But what if "normal" has changed? For many people they hadn't even contemplated working from home prior to Covid. Then a sudden upheaval and lots of business have found it works just fine and in fact, in some cases, has been more productive and effective, especially if some sort of hybrid situation exists.
It doesn't work everywhere & all the time, but for some their work "normal" has changed, and the railways no longer have the captive market they once had for journeys into London from the Home Counties (as an example).
With respect, as an IT professional (analyst/developer basically) who has worked remotely for about 9 years now, this is twaddle. You can do a lot over Teams with a screenshare, and if you do need an in-person workshop (which is sometimes necessary) that can be arranged as needed without the need for people to be sat in the office coding or writing documentation when they could do it at home. It also gives more flexibility of staff allocation - you can put the right people on the right projects without having to consider whether they're based nearby or not.
This is what people mean by blended working - you go and physically meet people when there is a benefit to doing so, but don't waste time and money engaging in "presenteeism".
So an analyst / developer probably in a 4 bedroom detached house with a dedicated office for work at home; looking at the option to convert the double garage I to an office.
Try living in an average 3 bed semi or a flat / apartment with 2 kids. You are in the lounge where you spend your non working hours sharing it with the kids who are interrupting you as its a home communal room; if it's a flat its probaly a combined kitechen . Partner working in the bedroom on their laptop hunched up in a corner between a wardrobe and a bed. That's the reality of blended working for the vast majority. It just won't work long term.
It's also starting to work out cheaper jn the winter to actually buy a season ticket to get to the office than heat the house in the winter.
With respect, as an IT professional (analyst/developer basically) who has worked remotely for about 9 years now, this is twaddle. You can do a lot over Teams with a screenshare, and if you do need an in-person workshop (which is sometimes necessary) that can be arranged as needed without the need for people to be sat in the office coding or writing documentation when they could do it at home. It also gives more flexibility of staff allocation - you can put the right people on the right projects without having to consider whether they're based nearby or not.
This is what people mean by blended working - you go and physically meet people when there is a benefit to doing so, but don't waste time and money engaging in "presenteeism".
Depends upon the working environment. Working on discrete pre-planned projects is very different to dealing with a multitude of reactive issues, for example.
We seem to agree that for some activities, in person works better. Perhaps we can also agree that some workplaces, tasks, activities require more of those activities than something like IT?
With respect, as an IT professional (analyst/developer basically) who has worked remotely for about 9 years now, this is twaddle. You can do a lot over Teams with a screenshare, and if you do need an in-person workshop (which is sometimes necessary) that can be arranged as needed without the need for people to be sat in the office coding or writing documentation when they could do it at home. It also gives more flexibility of staff allocation - you can put the right people on the right projects without having to consider whether they're based nearby or not.
This is what people mean by blended working - you go and physically meet people when there is a benefit to doing so, but don't waste time and money engaging in "presenteeism".
I don’t think I would use IT or software as a good example of something that can be done remotely/from home.
In my experience whenever someone has been remote, and not talking to their colleagues in person, one part of the software never seems to perfectly interact with another. But the IT person is always blind to the faulty contribution from their remote working colleague or team, and uses the term bug, as though it has become an acceptable excuse to deliver faulty products.
I bet the faulty software on class 345s and class 701 wasn’t written in the factory, but had people working remotely (and thus sloppily). So if they want it to work you set them all up in the test room with a real train wiring loom and make them observe it properly.
Depends upon the working environment. Working on discrete pre-planned projects is very different to dealing with a multitude of reactive issues, for example.
We seem to agree that for some activities, in person works better. Perhaps we can also agree that some workplaces, tasks, activities require more of those activities than something like IT?
Yes, this is why it needs to be a discussion between the employees and employer (and any Union) about what is the best approach, and not an ideological push like that of the behatted Luddite Rees-Mogg.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I don’t think I would use IT or software as a good example of something that can be done remotely/from home.
In my experience whenever someone has been remote, and not talking to their colleagues in person, one part of the software never seems to perfectly interact with another. But the IT person is always blind to the faulty contribution from their remote working colleague or team, and uses the term bug, as though it has become an acceptable excuse to deliver faulty products.
I bet the faulty software on class 345s and class 701 wasn’t written in the factory, but had people working remotely (and thus sloppily). So if they want it to work you set them all up in the test room with a real train wiring loom and make them observe it properly.
That's a rotten company. Rotten companies are rotten wherever their staff are located. You often find you engage rotten companies if you let work to the cheapest bidder without other stipulations on quality, something the railway seems to like doing at times.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So an analyst / developer probably in a 4 bedroom detached house with a dedicated office for work at home; looking at the option to convert the double garage I to an office.
Try living in an average 3 bed semi or a flat / apartment with 2 kids. You are in the lounge where you spend your non working hours sharing it with the kids who are interrupting you as its a home communal room; if it's a flat its probaly a combined kitechen . Partner working in the bedroom on their laptop hunched up in a corner between a wardrobe and a bed. That's the reality of blended working for the vast majority. It just won't work long term.
It's also starting to work out cheaper jn the winter to actually buy a season ticket to get to the office than heat the house in the winter.
Which is a reason why a particular employee might want to ask their employer for a permanent desk in an office. But is NOT a reason why other employees who don't want to work in the office, or only want to do so some of the time, shouldn't work from home.
And if the latter is true, you need to be looking seriously at your home insulation, because my total energy cost per year in a pretty average 1970s Barratt terraced house is nowhere near the five grand an annual season to London would cost me, and that's the total, not just the proportion of it spent from 9am to 5:30pm Monday to Friday on powering a laptop, monitor and heating one fairly small room.
(Yes, I have a dedicated office room - the "box room" third bedroom - but my friend who also works from home does so from a desk in his bedroom in a one-bed flat and seems happy enough with that)
So an analyst / developer probably in a 4 bedroom detached house with a dedicated office for work at home; looking at the option to convert the double garage I to an office.
Try living in an average 3 bed semi or a flat / apartment with 2 kids. You are in the lounge where you spend your non working hours sharing it with the kids who are interrupting you as its a home communal room; if it's a flat its probaly a combined kiteche . Partner working in the bedroom on their laptop hunched up in a corner between a wardrobe and a bed. That's the reality of blended working for the vast majority. It just won't work long term.
It's also starting to work out cheaper jn the winter to actually buy a season ticket to get to the office than heat the house in the winter.
And this is the point. For many, working from home is a pain. The moneyed few can afford a home office (I'll hold my hand up - I worked from home for 12 years from a home office with no compromises). Everyone else has to make serious compromises about how the available space is allocated and at what times. And that's without mentioning mental health issues arising from the lack of basic human interractions and the inability to "switch off" i.e. the transition from being "at work" to being "at home." I was in an international role and the number of my work colleagues answering their works mobiie at silly o'clock local time was scary. I regularly had work conversations with Australian colleagues well past midnight their local time - a few were useful, but many more were fuelled by alcohol on their part. So, no surprise there were several "disappearances" from the Aussie team i.e. breakdowns. Others got out with their sanity intact. Good for them.
For what it's worth, my opinion is established professionals who are set up at home love working remotely. But for younger employees who want to get on who live in flat-shares or have a young family in a small home, i.e most of them, it's pretty tough.
And capitalism being what it is, many of the younger professionals are cheaper to employ than the old hands. There's a tipping point. Corporations will notice that fact and act accordingly. So I'm expecting a "market correction", probably driven by the City, that will cascade through SE England and then beyond.
If I'm right, the Treasury just needs to have patience. If I'm wrong then high density commuting is finished, which would turn the railway into an inter-city travel mode and the huge amount of money expended on commuters having a local station to commute from can be saved.
Be careful for what you wish for, on so many levels.
Obviously there are some jobs where coming into work 100% of the time, or working from home 100% or the time, are the only logical options.
However, I think for most other jobs (particularly 'office' type ones) it makes sense to have flexibility. There is no point unnecessarily forcing people to come into an office full time (thus meaning they need to take time off to receive deliveries/have tradesmen etc.) but equally it doesn't really help if you never see your colleagues and can never switch off from work as you don't have a good way of working at home.
As with so many things it's about being reasonable, and in my view that is to give people flexibility as to exactly how often they come in, but to perhaps set a recommended minimum attendance of once or twice a week. And if anyone is consistently not meeting that then starting the process of asking why they're not doing so, whether there is anything the employer can do to help them come in more often etc.
In many ways Covid has improved a lot of business' attitudes to working practices, but there is still too much political slinging around of working from home/the office when really it's something where the government's involvement should, imo, extend no further than advising employers to adopt a flexible policy.
Obviously there are some jobs where coming into work 100% of the time, or working from home 100% or the time, are the only logical options.
However, I think for most other jobs (particularly 'office' type ones) it makes sense to have flexibility. There is no point unnecessarily forcing people to come into an office full time (thus meaning they need to take time off to receive deliveries/have tradesmen etc.) but equally it doesn't really help if you never see your colleagues and can never switch off from work as you don't have a good way of working at home.
As with so many things it's about being reasonable, and in my view that is to give people flexibility as to exactly how often they come in, but to perhaps set a recommended minimum attendance of once or twice a week. And if anyone is consistently not meeting that then starting the process of asking why they're not doing so, whether there is anything the employer can do to help them come in more often etc.
In many ways Covid has improved a lot of business' attitudes to working practices, but there is still too much political slinging around of working from home/the office when really it's something where the government's involvement should, imo, extend no further than advising employers to adopt a flexible policy.
It would appear to me that there is a lot of jealousy over people home working and an assumption from those that can’t do that that it is a toss off and people are sat at home watching TV.
Work life has changed, if you can work 100% from home effectively then do it, if you can’t do that at all then sort it with your boss to work 100% office but for the vast majority hybrid is just perfect, especially if you can choose your office days weekly to suit. Losing 2-3 hours of commute in a day means you are less tired and can actually do more with your life including being more productive on a work from home day. Most good bosses allow people to attend an appointment midweek so long as you make your hours up freeing up weekends.
It’s not like home working is new, it’s just that it has become more widespread due to the pandemic.
Reading some of the comments upthread you’d think that every home worker was in their 20’s, squashed into a shared flat, laptop balanced on knee watching Netflix 24/7. Most home workers I know (various ages) manage just fine weather it’s a home office in a spare bedroom as the kids have left home, the dining table or the living room (not everyone is bothered by working in there as implied). All of them are now in the situation to have flexible working practice simply because they are able to do that. Maybe it’s time people just accepted that that is the way forward.
I suspect Rees-Mogg won’t be happy until all office workers are back to being bowled hatted men working 9-5 with the little lady cleaning the house and preparing meals, so his opinion amounts to zero to me.
There is no doubt that there certainly is a post COVID rebound in leisure travel and probably something in commuter / work travel as well.
The work from home debate seems to be taking over this thread in the UK Railway discussion section and as we have discussed it at length in other threads we are going to leave it there.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
