I heard a new phrase... Employee Vendor = benefit, and policy changes for work from home status...

[Skippy918]

I don’t know if I like the idea of having 2 classes of employees which this is what this feels like. All employees no matter where their location is should have the same benefits.

 

[momz]

I don't see a problem with designating work from home employee differently than office based employee. I worked from home for most of the pandemic and can say that there was much abuse of this "perk" by others who were also working from home. I am a healthcare provider and was on the employee covid call team as well as providing virtual care. I had colleagues who were mothering their toddlers while also taking calls! Many instances of dogs barking. Also other people walking around in the background while a provider was on a video consult call. Basically many things that take the person's focus off of the job at hand and is also extremely unprofessional.

Imagine bringing your dogs or your kids into the office with you and thinking you can get any work done! that's basically what happens if those variables are not addressed and controlled for.

Studies have shown that productivity is better in the office than it is at home. I'm sure there are exceptions and work from home is a blessing for many people, but unfortunately too many have spoiled it and so companies have to put policies in place.

 

[LovesTimone]

I don’t know if I like the idea of having 2 classes of employees which this is what this feels like. All employees no matter where their location is should have the same benefits.

I think that is more along the lines of different job descriptions, based on where you work at, what skill set you offer, knowledge, and other things that go into it, there are always different pay grades where ever someone works, not everyone makes the same thing... If anything the owner is trying to keep everyone accountable for their work load, and do right by his employee's...

Working from home has its own different set of issues verse working in the office where rules and professional behavior is already established..It's not apples to apples

Spouse, Partners, Girlfriends, boyfriends, room-mates - kids, pets... in and out of the space where you are trying to work... in the office your not going to have your kids running in and out telling on each other, or you spouse or significant other walking around in their birthday suit, or the neighbors dogs making puppies in the background...

 

[tvguy]

I'm in California, so they HAVE to give you some sick time.
My former company has 64 locations, just two in California. Another rule in our state, you can NEVER lose vacation time. They have to let you carry it over, make you take it, or pay you for it. Trust me, they will NEVER pay you for it, you will be forced to take time off. Now, when I retired, my "official" retirement date was 6 weeks later. They carried me on the books until I exhausted my vacation time.

As I have posted before, one of the challenges my company faced two years ago shifting employees to home work was they discovered how many employees had no internet access at home. They did all their internet stuff at work on breaks.....(hopefully).
And about a year before I had to compile a list of personal phone numbers, and a lot of folks only had a company issued cell phone. Which explains why so many people buy out their company phone when they leave. It's the only phone number they have.

 

[HopperFan]

Most of it sounds very reasonable and I'm a bit impressed this employer worked at getting educated on the parameters and came up with a solid and fairly clear pathway for each type of employee. Love it when management doesn't wing it.

There are many companies that are actually reducing the pay of those who continue to work at home when they used to work in a high cost of living district. EX: John commuted into Manhattan every day to do his job while Sue, who has the same job, has opted to move to Small Town USA working virtually, where her costs are much less. Sue takes a pay cut. Part of one's pay is often determined by where you live.

I think where OP's friend has an advantage is that she is now being paid to complete her jobs not the hours she sits at desk. Many (I've experienced this) folks can complete their jobs efficiently and timely while another person takes much longer to do the same thing. So if one gets the job done in 4 hours that day what the company has figured takes 7 hours based on overall employee performance, that person just gained 3 hours back that day to move on to the next project or do something else.

It sucks that they didn't outline all of this before making employees make a decision, but...
She lost 8 sick days and gained 5 vacation days. Which could actually be a great thing, since she wouldn't be able to use sick days unless she were actually sick, while the vacation days are now a benefit that has to be paid out. (As a PP said, one large Paid Time Off bucket, rather than sick vs. vacation, isn't that unusual. I used to have PTO and now I'm back to sick/vacation, and I much preferred the PTO method)
I also would definitely roll my eyes at the children/spouses/pets comment (said as my dog is sitting comfortably at my feet)

DH has worked from home for YEARS and not unusual to have a dog or two in his office. Now if they are lively he will put them out for a meeting but most the folks he meets with all have critter family. I think the rule goes in to place to address the extreme person who can't focus, who puts critter on their lap or their critter is noisy. Unfortunately the rules come about because of the few who don't handle the situation well. [Same for kids and spouses]

I don’t know if I like the idea of having 2 classes of employees which this is what this feels like. All employees no matter where their location is should have the same benefits.

I don't look at them as "social classes" or even importance I think it is necessary because the terms of their "work contract" are different. On paper they are different in many ways and therefore it allows them to keep uniformity on how each group is managed. I agree the sick benefit was a glitch they likely will have to face some challenges with, it should have just been PTO or similar that equals out to the work must be done whether on your own time or at work. BUT since they are paid in different ways, it may also balance itself out anyway.

 

[fla4fun]

My feeling on the two classes of employees is that the remote workers will likely be the first to go if there is ever any need to do layoffs, and the last considered for promotion regardless of how well qualified they are. I feel that the remote employees will always be considered ”less than” their in office counterparts because they won’t have the face time and casual interactions that can make a big difference in how your career advances.

I don’t fault the company for moving to smaller offices to save money, but I do feel that there were probably more than a few employees who might have made a different decision (on both sides) if they had been given the information before making that decision. Making an uninformed decision rarely works out well for the person making it. Knowledge is power.

 

[Skippy918]

I think that is more along the lines of different job descriptions, based on where you work at, what skill set you offer, knowledge, and other things that go into it, there are always different pay grades where ever someone works, not everyone makes the same thing... If anything the owner is trying to keep everyone accountable for their work load, and do right by his employee's...

Working from home has its own different set of issues verse working in the office where rules and professional behavior is already established..It's not apples to apples

Spouse, Partners, Girlfriends, boyfriends, room-mates - kids, pets... in and out of the space where you are trying to work... in the office your not going to have your kids running in and out telling on each other, or you spouse or significant other walking around in their birthday suit, or the neighbors dogs making puppies in the background...

I would expect salaries to vary based on job role and experience but benefits, no. Everywhere I worked no matter if you were remote or on site, everyone got the same benefits. This is excluding other countries where laws are different.
We all had the same insurance choices and same PTO policy.

 

[sam_gordon]

My feeling on the two classes of employees is that the remote workers will likely be the first to go if there is ever any need to do layoffs, and the last considered for promotion regardless of how well qualified they are. I feel that the remote employees will always be considered ”less than” their in office counterparts because they won’t have the face time and casual interactions that can make a big difference in how your career advances.

That could be true, but shouldn't those who elected to work from home have considered that themselves? Wouldn't that be the case (each company is different, so assuming it's true) regardless of whether they put out these rules or not?

I don’t fault the company for moving to smaller offices to save money, but I do feel that there were probably more than a few employees who might have made a different decision (on both sides) if they had been given the information before making that decision. Making an uninformed decision rarely works out well for the person making it. Knowledge is power.

Yes, some may have made different decisions. And there's probably nothing keeping them from going to their managers and saying "with the information presented, I'd like to change my location answer".

I assume most people (owners/managers included) aren't trying to screw anyone over, and it's very possible the company in the OP found out so many people would work remotely that they had to change their business model, not that they decided to change their business model and then <insert evil laugh here> see how many people fall for it and choose to work remotely.

 

[jrmasm]

I think that is more along the lines of different job descriptions, based on where you work at, what skill set you offer, knowledge, and other things that go into it, there are always different pay grades where ever someone works, not everyone makes the same thing... If anything the owner is trying to keep everyone accountable for their work load, and do right by his employee's...

Working from home has its own different set of issues verse working in the office where rules and professional behavior is already established..It's not apples to apples

Spouse, Partners, Girlfriends, boyfriends, room-mates - kids, pets... in and out of the space where you are trying to work... in the office your not going to have your kids running in and out telling on each other, or you spouse or significant other walking around in their birthday suit, or the neighbors dogs making puppies in the background...

You’ve never heard of a pet friendly work place?

 

[goofytinkerbell]

1

 

[momz]

Not telling people about the changes before they decided seems like a dirty way to do things. I question if this might be a plan to make it easier to change them to contractors or even terminate some people later on.

I've been working from home since the beginning of the pandemic and they're still undecided what will happen with us. We expect another update in the next couple weeks, but we've had very little stability.

I will say that the 'work machines are only for work' rule should have always been in place. As someone who spent years in IT, I can tell you it's a major security issue.


People abusing things is a problem with the employee themselves, not a problem with working from home. I do think you need an "office space" where you can work effectively, and some people just aren't great at working from home. But in the case of my office, productivity has shot up significantly since we started working at home. There are less distractions for most of us, and people stop interrupting us for stupid things. They make attempts to fix their own issues, as opposed to showing up at someone's desk expecting that person to drop whatever they're doing to help.

I can see your point about productivity.

Clearly my perspective is different. Confidentiality is a major issue in the healthcare industry and as such, working from home requires a lot of control. Have to consider the devices employees are using and mandate how, when and by whom they are accessed. Also, you really should not be conducting a consultation when there are other people in the room who can hear the conversation. Not to mention the difficulty of maintaining focus on the patient while the dog is messing with something, or the baby is crying, or whatnot.

I didn't like working from home. I prefer working face to face with my patients. But, again, there's all types of "work". For many, location doesn't matter as much.

 

[goofytinkerbell]

1

 

[jrmasm]

I can see your point about productivity.

Clearly my perspective is different. Confidentiality is a major issue in the healthcare industry and as such, working from home requires a lot of control. Have to consider the devices employees are using and mandate how, when and by whom they are accessed. Also, you really should not be conducting a consultation when there are other people in the room who can hear the conversation. Not to mention the difficulty of maintaining focus on the patient while the dog is messing with something, or the baby is crying, or whatnot.

I didn't like working from home. I prefer working face to face with my patients. But, again, there's all types of "work". For many, location doesn't matter as much.

Not all jobs are well suited for wfh for a variety of reasons. And by the same token, plenty of jobs are very well suited for wfh. Not recognizing the difference is the problem.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

They get 2 weeks of vacation a year - a 1 day extra for each year after 10 years of employment - which for her is an extra week of vacation, so she gained 5 extra vacation days...

Is that common for her industry? I'm used to 2 weeks to start, +1 week at 5 years, and +1 week at 10 years as a normal progression.

She said that the company that she work's for is a drug free work place, and effective immediately random drug testing for everyone went into place... that for the people that work from home, representative from HR and nurse would come to do in your own home... and if you refuse or fail the test, it is immediate termination... the HR person will take the company property and wish you good luck.. She said that this had the most push back from a few people...

The only place I've ever heard of random drug screenings were industries where dangerous equipment was used. Fork truck operators, for example, were subject to random screenings.

Random screening of WFH employees seems like an overreach. Considering how good the labor market is, the employer should be careful with upsetting too many employees.

I don't see a problem with designating work from home employee differently than office based employee. I worked from home for most of the pandemic and can say that there was much abuse of this "perk" by others who were also working from home. I am a healthcare provider and was on the employee covid call team as well as providing virtual care. I had colleagues who were mothering their toddlers while also taking calls! Many instances of dogs barking. Also other people walking around in the background while a provider was on a video consult call. Basically many things that take the person's focus off of the job at hand and is also extremely unprofessional.

Imagine bringing your dogs or your kids into the office with you and thinking you can get any work done! that's basically what happens if those variables are not addressed and controlled for.

Studies have shown that productivity is better in the office than it is at home. I'm sure there are exceptions and work from home is a blessing for many people, but unfortunately too many have spoiled it and so companies have to put policies in place.

The same people who "abused" WFH were the ones spending the morning cubicle hopping to talk about the weekend's sportsball game. Some people just aren't going to work 100% of their 40 hours regardless of environment.

Considering how WFH was pushed onto people, I don't judge any of the scenarios described as "unprofessional." We're all just trying to get done what we can and some people don't have the luxury of a dedicated room to work in. Also, some of the most creative offices I can think of allow pets to be brought in and there are no issues getting work done.

Did those studies take into account that most that WFH put in more hours? I know I'm guilty of that as I am regularly online at times that are past when I would have logged out and hit the road to get home. My employer is getting benefits from allowing me to not waste over an hour a day in a car.

 

[fla4fun]

Yes, some may have made different decisions. And there's probably nothing keeping them from going to their managers and saying "with the information presented, I'd like to change my location answer".

I assume most people (owners/managers included) aren't trying to screw anyone over, and it's very possible the company in the OP found out so many people would work remotely that they had to change their business model, not that they decided to change their business model and then <insert evil laugh here> see how many people fall for it and choose to work remotely.

Now that they have moved to smaller offices, it may not be as simple as reversing their WFH decision. There simply may not be space to accommodate more people.

I don’t know if the company did this in a nefarious way or not, as far as the changes in status and benefits. Management should have discussed from the beginning what their options were going to be if more people chose one option over another, and both ways. That’s just good business planning. Then they could have laid everything out on the table and then let the employees choose. If they didn’t discuss the consequences of one choice over another from the beginning, then they aren’t a company I would want to work for. I prefer proactive to reactive.

Of course, there could be other contributing factors that we are unaware of.

Situations like this are why I am only considering jobs that are 100% in person during my job hunt. I did not enjoy WFH, as I need the full separation of work/personal life. But that’s just me. I know that I don’t want to work for a company that thinks two people who are performing the exact same job duties are not equal just because one is remote and the other is not.

 

[lifesavacation]

My feeling on the two classes of employees is that the remote workers will likely be the first to go if there is ever any need to do layoffs, and the last considered for promotion regardless of how well qualified they are. I feel that the remote employees will always be considered ”less than” their in office counterparts because they won’t have the face time and casual interactions that can make a big difference in how your career advances.

I don’t fault the company for moving to smaller offices to save money, but I do feel that there were probably more than a few employees who might have made a different decision (on both sides) if they had been given the information before making that decision. Making an uninformed decision rarely works out well for the person making it. Knowledge is power.

My perspective as a small business owner would actually be the opposite. If I have 2 employees. One is WFH and the other comes to the office. Assuming both are equally productive, I’d let the office person go first. I’m not paying for internet or supplies like pens and soap and even toilet paper for the WFH person, and I could potentially shrink my overhead costs by getting a smaller space. Financially, that would make the most sense to me.

I have friends and family whose employers have given up their buildings and aren’t returning to the office. Money was saved during the last couple of years and the work still got done.

 

[sam_gordon]

Now that they have moved to smaller offices, it may not be as simple as reversing their WFH decision. There simply may not be space to accommodate more people.

True. But you don't know until you ask.

I don’t know if the company did this in a nefarious way or not, as far as the changes in status and benefits. Management should have discussed from the beginning what their options were going to be if more people chose one option over another, and both ways. That’s just good business planning. Then they could have laid everything out on the table and then let the employees choose. If they didn’t discuss the consequences of one choice over another from the beginning, then they aren’t a company I would want to work for. I prefer proactive to reactive.

I'm glad you're the type of person who thinks of every single contingency before making a decision.

Of course, there could be other contributing factors that we are unaware of.

Exactly. But it seems many people would rather assume the worst. I can EASILY see them think "oh, we may lose a handful of people to remote work" and then more took the option than they thought would.

Situations like this are why I am only considering jobs that are 100% in person during my job hunt. I did not enjoy WFH, as I need the full separation of work/personal life. But that’s just me. I know that I don’t want to work for a company that thinks two people who are performing the exact same job duties are not equal just because one is remote and the other is not.

Well, what if the company pays for parking (for example) for those in the building? Should they pay that same money to those who work from home (even though they don't need the parking)? I'm sure there's more examples, that's just one that came to mind quickly.

 

[tzolkin]

Studies have shown that productivity is better in the office than it is at home.

Really? Everything I have read has indicated that working from home is more productive. I believe that has been an issue during this time because people tend to work more hours and are having trouble separating their home/personal time from work.

She said that the company that she work's for is a drug free work place, and effective immediately random drug testing for everyone went into place... that for the people that work from home, representative from HR and nurse would come to do in your own home... and if you refuse or fail the test, it is immediate termination... the HR person will take the company property and wish you good luck.. She said that this had the most push back from a few people...

This sounds like a poor idea and likely to get quite a few good employees fired that the employer is not expecting. You tell your employees that drug testing is the policy BEFORE they start the job not randomly after they have been there for years. Why would you want to chance having to fire productive employees because you changed your policy with no notice? Especially with all the new hemp and CBD products that can cause someone to fail a drug test even though they just consumed a legal seltzer or gummy this seems like the worst time to institute this new rule.

 

[LovesTimone]

Really? Everything I have read has indicated that working from home is more productive. I believe that has been an issue during this time because people tend to work more hours and are having trouble separating their home/personal time from work.


This sounds like a poor idea and likely to get quite a few good employees fired that the employer is not expecting. You tell your employees that drug testing is the policy BEFORE they start the job not randomly after they have been there for years. Why would you want to chance having to fire productive employees because you changed your policy with no notice? Especially with all the new hemp and CBD products that can cause someone to fail a drug test even though they just consumed a legal seltzer or gummy this seems like the worst time to institute this new rule.

OP here,
Maybe I should clarify... drug testing has/had always been a part of the employment agreement... This was not something new... since things were returning to normal, just the office people were being drug tested... to which they complained, so this was extended to the work from home employee's.. which is fair...

 

[LovesTimone]

Op here

I talked to my friend yesterday afternoon, to see how she was doing and actually she is really good with the changes...

She is about 20 months from retirement... Her and her DH are in full retirement planning, getting their ducks all in a row...

She said that being able to keep her insurance was a huge thing, along with paid vacation was really wonderful.. she had 8 sick days which she can get paid out on, or use... If they had earned it they are able to use it, just no new sick days...She did not want to be a private contractor.. so this works out for her...

Since working from home right off the starting mark.. here are some of benefits that she said added to their retirement fund...

She no longer has to pay the dog walker, she has 2 little dogs, 100.00 dollars a week plus 25.00 for the tip, so 500.00 dollars a month..

The housekeeper service only comes once a month now for deep cleaning... which before was weekly... so another nice chunk of change going into the retirement fund... She did spring for 2 iRobot roomba's one for upstairs and downstairs.. dog hair.

The savings on gas, and wear and tear on her car, plus not sitting in traffic 45 minutes to an hour both ways...

She has lunch at home, daily which when working in the office she was always going out to lunch... more savings...

Not having to buy new work clothing... huge saving here... She said that she went out and bought some really nice black, grey, and navy leggings, and she wears nice tunics over them, she keep ballet flats under her desk... she keeps a blazer or nice cardigan in the closet so she can grab it if she has to be on video conference.

Another thing is all the gift giving for co-workers, birthday, wedding and baby shower, going away, greedy Santa, Christmas, and retirement...

When the pandemic started, the company that her DH works for completely had to redo their format... so instead of him taking the work from home position and becoming a private contractor, he took one of the travel position... more money, and he got to keep his insurance, vacation and the travel perks, air miles, hotel points, car rental points, restaurant points... they weighed everything before, they made this decision. While him being gone 4 or 5 days a week is hard ... they have a goal, and retirement in sight...

I think that everyone has to make choice for themselves, and weigh everything all out. Plus look at what might happen or could happen... You have to be responsible for yourself... No one can see the future, you just have to make the choice for yourself at any given time.