Is it just me thinking wfh is abused?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My only problem with WFH and Remote is this:

remote is Tuesday and Friday At work
Some staff claim the work 9.5 hours on their two remote days and other days in office 7 a day. So in office 21 hours a week. Only at work 1/2 the time.

Other staff skip Xmas party, summer party as not getting paid.

I have no problem as long as work is done but these people keep asking promotions and raises. A job is a job, a career is a career you can’t have both at most places

Fwiw I am someone who genuinely enjoys office parties but I think it’s very cynical to basically force people to “have fun” and then hold it against them if they refuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That isn’t allowed in most work places. But I also wonder why you being a mom of two is relevant.

If OP hadn't specified that she was a mom too, she would have been blasted to high heaven about being a DINK or childless and not understanding the plight and struggles of parents.

Does OP even have a job? She just sounds like a judgy poop-stirrer

OP here. Full time employment. My experience is interacting with colleagues across our large system, across departments too.ive see the abuse first hand. I do have option to wfh three days a week. But j choose to come in 5 days a week bc I live less than 30 min away.

Why do you choose to come in?
Is it because you prefer it or because you feel like it’s very important to go the extra mile and are upset when others don’t ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but I have two co-workers who kept their infants at home for a full year while working full-time without any additional help (other than two WFH parents). One of them said she couldn't find childcare, the other one one said her mom was living with them (mom was definitely not living with them, we had mutual friends).

It’s like you are sad that two moms actually got to spend time with their infants!
No work is as important as this. And if they left work they would have a hard time going back because of policies that are hostile to mothers (and to everyone frankly with all the endless interviews).
I am glad infants are getting quality care instead of being in daycares

DP. If these women had the arrangement cleared with their employers, I would have zero complaints. But if they are taking advantage of the system, they are hurting all women in similar positions. We need longer parental leave, but the answer isn’t being paid for work while caring for a child.

Also infants get quality care in daycare. It would be amazing if we had longer parental leave, but don’t make parents feel like their child isn’t cared for in a quality daycare setting.

Let’s not fool ourselves
Policy changes won’t happen while our kids are little.
Maybe our grandkids? Who knows
And even a quality daycare is worse than 1:1 with a loving intelligent woman
It’s acceptable and doesn’t hurt the kids in the long run as there are so many factors at play but at least let’s be real

Enmeshed much? Your child is no longer a part of your own body.

Um, my kid is a teen and pretty independent.
I will never ever judge a woman putting her infant in daycare to work.
But let’s be honest with ourselves that for infants at least (not talking about preschool aged kids here) it’s better to have one primary caregiver for most of the day, and an intelligent one at that.

This is true, but unfortunately it's not possible to be a good primary caregiver at the same time as working a full time job. I did it with an infant in 2020 during covid and struggled to get in 6 hours of work a day even with help from my husband. I think American parental leaves should be paid and longer like in other countries, but WFH is not an appropriate solution to the problem.

I agree with you but it is what it is. It’s the best solution for now. And if the work suffers a bit - it’s fine.
I don’t mind doing a little extra to help a mom out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was talking with a younger colleague last week. They're paying over $5000 a month between rent and childcare (we're not in DC) and I couldn't believe it. My kids are all older, but I have no idea how people manage with costs like that. I know how much he makes and his salary alone isn't enough to cover that.

I have zero sympathy. Having children and living in high-cost areas are choices.

And at least having children is a good choice. You will understand it when you are 90 you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but I have two co-workers who kept their infants at home for a full year while working full-time without any additional help (other than two WFH parents). One of them said she couldn't find childcare, the other one one said her mom was living with them (mom was definitely not living with them, we had mutual friends).

It’s like you are sad that two moms actually got to spend time with their infants!
No work is as important as this. And if they left work they would have a hard time going back because of policies that are hostile to mothers (and to everyone frankly with all the endless interviews).
I am glad infants are getting quality care instead of being in daycares

Meanwhile, those of us with older children or no children at all have to pick up the slack. You're being paid to do a job, not take care of your baby.

I actually don’t mind picking up some slack.
My teen was a baby once, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but I have two co-workers who kept their infants at home for a full year while working full-time without any additional help (other than two WFH parents). One of them said she couldn't find childcare, the other one one said her mom was living with them (mom was definitely not living with them, we had mutual friends).

It’s like you are sad that two moms actually got to spend time with their infants!
No work is as important as this. And if they left work they would have a hard time going back because of policies that are hostile to mothers (and to everyone frankly with all the endless interviews).
I am glad infants are getting quality care instead of being in daycares

DP. If these women had the arrangement cleared with their employers, I would have zero complaints. But if they are taking advantage of the system, they are hurting all women in similar positions. We need longer parental leave, but the answer isn’t being paid for work while caring for a child.

Also infants get quality care in daycare. It would be amazing if we had longer parental leave, but don’t make parents feel like their child isn’t cared for in a quality daycare setting.

Let’s not fool ourselves
Policy changes won’t happen while our kids are little.
Maybe our grandkids? Who knows
And even a quality daycare is worse than 1:1 with a loving intelligent woman
It’s acceptable and doesn’t hurt the kids in the long run as there are so many factors at play but at least let’s be real

Is it though? When said loving, intelligent woman is also preoccupied with work? I would not be doing a good job at either my job or mothering if I was both working and taking care of my children at the same time. The only reason we do it now is because my kids are 8 and 10 and will just watch tv and read books for the hour between when they get home from school and when their dad and I are done working.

I think it’s a better setup than daycare, yes (for the infant).
The work will most likely suffer but it’s not very important in the grand scheme of things.
It may be a worse setup for the mom but then she will find childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know any parents skipping daycare but know several who gave up afterschool care (and they can definitely afford it). They also take an hour each day (outside of lunch) to pick their kids up at school and walk them home (but still log off at 5-5:30).

It’s frustrating to see as someone with kids who does the right thing, but I don’t work for their employers. If these are your coworkers, complain if it’s impacting you. Otherwise just smile politely when they complain about not getting raises or watch as their career stall.

Maybe it’s time to reevaluate priorities and see that a walk with your kids is more meaningful than achieving some made up goals at work.
Unless you are a doctor or teacher or someone like that, your job can wait

Would you tell this to your server if after she took your order she took her kids for a walk before bringing you your lunch?

Unlike office drones, a waitress actually does work that matters to someone.

Haha touché! Bravo PP

[Anonymous]

I say to have separate pay bands that depend on the time urgency of the job role.

Example: Reception staff in a hospital A&E. If patient arrives at 08:30 obviously everyone can’t be out running errands, there needs to be a butt in the seat employee A to check that patient in face to face. However there is background paperwork that needs to be filled in but not urgently, say within 3 hours. So employee B could be WFH and responsible for back office tasks.

Pay Employee A 25% more than Employee B due to the acknowledgment that their role is more inconvenient, and inflexible. The role is reactive in nature and requires constant coverage and requires them to commute to the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I say to have separate pay bands that depend on the time urgency of the job role.

Example: Reception staff in a hospital A&E. If patient arrives at 08:30 obviously everyone can’t be out running errands, there needs to be a butt in the seat employee A to check that patient in face to face. However there is background paperwork that needs to be filled in but not urgently, say within 3 hours. So employee B could be WFH and responsible for back office tasks.

Pay Employee A 25% more than Employee B due to the acknowledgment that their role is more inconvenient, and inflexible. The role is reactive in nature and requires constant coverage and requires them to commute to the workplace.

This is funny to me because everywhere I've worked, public and private sectors, customer facing staff make significantly less than back office staff. This is true at my public-facing federal agency for sure, because the front line staff have jobs that are considered less complex than the administrative and professional staff. I mean, fine, but you have to recognize they're not thr same jobs either, if you paid me more to work in person at a more fun job (I used to be front line) I'd probably do it.

[Anonymous]

My first few jobs where front line customer service jobs and they where HORRIBLE, people are horrible, it made me more grateful to be an introvert. Those jobs definitely should be paid more than the easier form filling ones

[Anonymous]

I think it’s the opposite. It’s so much easier to get by not doing work by simply being in the office.

Not only do I waste so much time commuting but I chat and socialize, grab lunch with colleagues, a coffee here and there and even spend 10 minutes booting up and shutting down my computer. It’s stupid to require me to travel with my laptop to work in office B when I can stay at home and work in office A with 2 hours less commuting time. Because of this I mostly socialize when I go into the office. The rest of the time I attend meetings and add unnecessary comments like everyone else. I get brownie points because I go in often.

The worst part is when I’m commuting I leave at 5 and 5-6 is valuable time for working with our west coast office. Unfortunately my management prefers me to travel with my laptop to work instead of actually doing work. Now the 5 PM emails are responded to the following day. Working in an office is one of the more inefficient things I’ve seen. It’s like suggesting we use fax machines.

My guess is a lot of boomers were always doing this and it’s why they dislike WFH. If you have a good manager and actual deliverables, it’s easier to figure out during WFH who adds value.

[Anonymous]

Do you guys even see the cost of childcare nowadays and how even if you are willing to pay, you get flaky people playing unemployment sign on bonus game.

Is the job getting done?

Is the stupid meeting really necessary Larla because you dont have the same brainpower to finish your own task on your own?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s the opposite. It’s so much easier to get by not doing work by simply being in the office.

Not only do I waste so much time commuting but I chat and socialize, grab lunch with colleagues, a coffee here and there and even spend 10 minutes booting up and shutting down my computer. It’s stupid to require me to travel with my laptop to work in office B when I can stay at home and work in office A with 2 hours less commuting time. Because of this I mostly socialize when I go into the office. The rest of the time I attend meetings and add unnecessary comments like everyone else. I get brownie points because I go in often.

The worst part is when I’m commuting I leave at 5 and 5-6 is valuable time for working with our west coast office. Unfortunately my management prefers me to travel with my laptop to work instead of actually doing work. Now the 5 PM emails are responded to the following day. Working in an office is one of the more inefficient things I’ve seen. It’s like suggesting we use fax machines.

My guess is a lot of boomers were always doing this and it’s why they dislike WFH. If you have a good manager and actual deliverables, it’s easier to figure out during WFH who adds value.

You should log back on when you get home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s the opposite. It’s so much easier to get by not doing work by simply being in the office.

Not only do I waste so much time commuting but I chat and socialize, grab lunch with colleagues, a coffee here and there and even spend 10 minutes booting up and shutting down my computer. It’s stupid to require me to travel with my laptop to work in office B when I can stay at home and work in office A with 2 hours less commuting time. Because of this I mostly socialize when I go into the office. The rest of the time I attend meetings and add unnecessary comments like everyone else. I get brownie points because I go in often.

The worst part is when I’m commuting I leave at 5 and 5-6 is valuable time for working with our west coast office. Unfortunately my management prefers me to travel with my laptop to work instead of actually doing work. Now the 5 PM emails are responded to the following day. Working in an office is one of the more inefficient things I’ve seen. It’s like suggesting we use fax machines.

My guess is a lot of boomers were always doing this and it’s why they dislike WFH. If you have a good manager and actual deliverables, it’s easier to figure out during WFH who adds value.

You should log back on when you get home.

NP. No, that’s not how it works. You want to force me into the office because “collaboration” and “people work better in person” then you can bet your @ss that I will not be logging in again at home after my day at the office. You wanted my butt in the seat that day, you got it, but that’s all you’re getting.

[Anonymous]

When comparing two similar jobs, people generally do get paid more for constant availability. There is a pay penalty for temporal flexibility, which contributes to the gender pay gap. Google it.

This is rarely true in a single company though - if some employees work from home, they general are paid the same as someone at their same "level" who works from the office. I can see an argument for paying more for in person (a "commuting stipend"?), provided a person is productive in both places.

I prefer going to the office because I have very a short commute and focus better there, but I understand those who don't. Wasting 2 hours commuting sounds painful. I don't care how many hours a person works as long as they get their stuff done and I can count on them.

I don't get how anyone can WFH with small children. Maybe from age 3-9 months or so it could work, but even that seems tough. I tried it during the pandemic with an 18 mo old, and it was not possible.