Come to the office... any office!

[sreed]

it's not a valid one for this thread.

Well that's your opinion based on how you see this thread.

I read the OP as a comment about job ads mandating office attendance at any one of multiple sites across the country, hence my post citing another example, this one in the PS. Nothing to do with Thales or Oracle or IBM or any of that.

[northernladuk]

Well that's your opinion based on how you see this thread.

I read the OP as a comment about job ads mandating office attendance at any one of multiple sites across the country, hence my post citing another example, this one in the PS. Nothing to do with Thales or Oracle or IBM or any of that.

Your opinion is right don't get me wrong but we are talking different beasts here. You can expect it from the PS for a host of reasons, some you mention, and that's for standard jobs. This is for ERP programmes in a private company.

[sreed]

Your opinion is right don't get me wrong but we are talking different beasts here. You can expect it from the PS for a host of reasons, some you mention, and that's for standard jobs. This is for ERP programmes in a private company.

Sorry if it wasn't clear. What I meant is that I disagreed with your opinion about my post being "not a valid one for this thread"

My post wasn't intended as a comment on ERP or SAP or Thames or whatever this specific role or company is about. It was a comment and example related to the OP's point about ads advertising pop-in-to-any-one-of-the-following-cities "hybrid" roles in general.

[WTFH]

Yes it is. The thread is a discussion, well rant, about companies mandating office time without seemingly objective reasoning.

it’s also about someone saying a client is stupid, all because the person is of limited ability in understanding the client’s reasoning and requirements.

Applying a sweeping generalisation to a specific scenario does not always work.

[northernladuk]

Yes it is. The thread is a discussion, well rant, about companies mandating office time without seemingly objective reasoning.

Yep that is true but doesn't really help. There is a specific reason Thales may do it for a large ERP roll out compared to politics in a bum on seat PS gig so the distinction is uesful and key in a discussion about a particular role.

[sreed]

Yes it is. The thread is a discussion, well rant, about companies mandating office time without seemingly objective reasoning.

Yup, that’s how I treated it as well - “Come to the office... any office!” as per the thread title.

No comment on the discussion on Thales or whatever (probably) overpriced (quite likely) snouts-in-the-trough taxpayer-funded contract their lobbyists and HoC "consultants" might have won them from the govt.

No harm in some people commenting on the narrow issue of the specific ad and others commenting on the general point about come-to-any-of-our-offices ads.

[courtg9000]

Had a chat recently about quite a specialist role and for a number of reasons it was onsite only 5 days a week (when we spoke previously, it was going to be 2 days some weeks and a lot of WFH factored for me) and it was going to be most likely Liverpool based and would have to be inside IR35 because of the public attention it will get. They will fill it though. With Liverpool and the WFH changes I had to say no. To be fair I can see why. Its a sensitive, high profile project, one that will be in the papers from day one and one that cannot fail. Its massive budget too.

Also been nattering to friends locally (senior manager and above) and they are all being shepherded back in to the office at least 4 days a week. The probably biggest local employer here (some you might drive or have driven their products) is really pushing them to be back in full time even though they say on their website that they employ a flexible attitude to hybrid and WFH.

A firm I on good terms with has changed the start of the job search page on their website. when you click on search for vacancies it says "are you prepared to work in an office in central London 90% of the time?". Click no and it says "we do not have any jobs suitable for you".

[JustKeepSwimming]

Had a chat recently about quite a specialist role and for a number of reasons it was onsite only 5 days a week (when we spoke previously, it was going to be 2 days some weeks and a lot of WFH factored for me) and it was going to be most likely Liverpool based and would have to be inside IR35 because of the public attention it will get. They will fill it though. With Liverpool and the WFH changes I had to say no. To be fair I can see why. Its a sensitive, high profile project, one that will be in the papers from day one and one that cannot fail. Its massive budget too.

Also been nattering to friends locally (senior manager and above) and they are all being shepherded back in to the office at least 4 days a week. The probably biggest local employer here (some you might drive or have driven their products) is really pushing them to be back in full time even though they say on their website that they employ a flexible attitude to hybrid and WFH.

A firm I on good terms with has changed the start of the job search page on their website. when you click on search for vacancies it says "are you prepared to work in an office in central London 90% of the time?". Click no and it says "we do not have any jobs suitable for you".

Pfft, name them!

If the economy goes to pot next year, which i'm expecting, I can see many companies taking advantage and forcing people in more often.

By to pot I mean 2009 level media, near constant news of redundancies, bankruptcies etc. 2024 pay rises any bonuses will be none existent too.

I do wonder if any studies have been done on WFH. In the sense that economists claim that free movement of workers is great for the economy because it allows jobs to attract skilled workers. Like in the EU, if you're a high level mechanical engineer wanting to focus on F1, you're probably moving toward Silverstone where many of the teams are based.

Does the economy get a similar boost by allowing someone in Northern Ireland to work remotely for a company based in Birmingham? Or does any negatives outweigh any boost.

I guess it's a similar premise to IR35 (T&S).

[courtg9000]

Pfft, name them!

If the economy goes to pot next year, which i'm expecting, I can see many companies taking advantage and forcing people in more often.

By to pot I mean 2009 level media, near constant news of redundancies, bankruptcies etc. 2024 pay rises any bonuses will be none existent too.

I do wonder if any studies have been done on WFH. In the sense that economists claim that free movement of workers is great for the economy because it allows jobs to attract skilled workers. Like in the EU, if you're a high level mechanical engineer wanting to focus on F1, you're probably moving toward Silverstone where many of the teams are based.

Does the economy get a similar boost by allowing someone in Northern Ireland to work remotely for a company based in Birmingham? Or does any negatives outweigh any boost.

I guess it's a similar premise to IR35 (T&S).

I can't name numbers 1 or 3. It would be bad for business. As for number 2, I'm sure you can make a good guess at or get one of our colleagues to give you the name. Number 1 actually does not have a name or full brand yet (it is coming) but it is currently funded.

I don't believe with the explosion of WFH with lockdown that it was ever to be a permanent thing. I don't believe the employers felt that way either.

[JustKeepSwimming]

I can't name numbers 1 or 3. It would be bad for business. As for number 2, I'm sure you can make a good guess at or get one of our colleagues to give you the name. Number 1 actually does not have a name or full brand yet (it is coming) but it is currently funded.

I don't believe with the explosion of WFH with lockdown that it was ever to be a permanent thing. I don't believe the employers felt that way either.

Number 1 was what I was interested in tbh, just being nosey.

Number 2 I just assume JLR, have a mate who works there and desperate to leave because they are being forced into office more than originally planned (their issue is a biggish commute more than office time) + Indian ownership. Going from 1 to 3/4 days in effectively cancels out the pay increase they got compared to their lower grade local job. (plus I think you mentioned local knowledge of Warwickshire police...). For what it's worth I know someone who travel from Liverpool to 60 miles south of Coventry twice a week, as a permie!.

If number 1 doesn't have a brand/name that would to me suggest public sector? I know f all about Liverpool so no idea what it could be!

I agree that I think employers were forced into being more liberal with WFH than they would've wished due to labour shortages. I think we are now going to get into a 'greenwashing' phase where employers pretend to really support flexible working whilst secretly wanting and encouraging people to be in the office.

I did naively think that WFH was going to become mainstream, mainly because profits increased despite it. I do think retail FS are likely to maintain a strong flexible working policy. The same way it has maintained 35 hour weeks despite the norm being 37.5-40, equally they have maintained things like pension contributions at 10%+ (although they closed final salary)