• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Right to Work From Home Could Be Guaranteed By Law in Germany

Tesseract

Banned
equal access to assets and capital is a mistake, the system is not fair and it never will be

tear down your government, brick by brick
 
Last edited:

Amory

Member
That‘s really a non-issue IMO. People either get their work done on time and at or above the expected quality or they eventually get fired same as they would working in office.

The problem is too many companies/managers are bean counters who want to make sure they’re getting their 40 hours of work. when at the end of the day, with most jobs that could be done from home they’re really just paying for deliverables.

For instance, it doesn't matter if a report due at the end of the week took 30 hours or 40 hours of actual woes long as it’s done on time and high quality. But some managers get their jimmies rustled if they find out someone only worked 30 hours that week to do their assigned work even if the outcome was excellent.

Newsflash, the in-office employees aren’t working 40 hours either. People are goofing online, on their phones, chatting with coworkers or just generally taking their time with their work as they know if they finish early they’ll just get more work thrown at them. People learn quickly in most offices that if they’re more talented and work faster that it doesn’t pay to get ahead. They just end up doing an unfair amount of work while the slackers spend more time networking and kissing ass get promoted first.

More things need to go salaried and just be evaluated on the quality and timeliness of work/deliverables and that makes monitoring home workers the same as in-office ones. For both things are either done on time and high quality, or you get fired after a few fuck ups. This of course only applies to certain types of jobs where performance can be evaluated in this manner and that can be done equally well from home.
I don't think as many managers give a shit about counting the arbitrary 40 hours of work/week anymore. That's pretty old school thinking.

Generally speaking, it's a chore to work with or manage someone who works from home even if they're good at their job. They're just inherently not as available. So you're either stuck scheduling calls with them every time you want to talk, or waiting for their IM availability to turn green. It's inefficient even if you totally discount the social value of face to face interactions.

It's also not easy at most modern companies to just fire someone if they're slacking. Most HR/Legal teams want a lot of justification, evidence, documented warnings, etc. And justifiably so. But any office has its share of people who have learned where the bare minimum line is and are careful to stay just beyond it so they can stay employed. Giving every employee the opportunity to work from home as much as they want, regardless of tenure or reputation muddies that water.

WFH should definitely be more prevalent when things start up again. I'm fine with governments mandating it as long as there's a public health crisis going on, but after that we should leave it to companies to implement as appropriate for their own business.
 

Moogle11

Banned
I don't think as many managers give a shit about counting the arbitrary 40 hours of work/week anymore. That's pretty old school thinking.

Generally speaking, it's a chore to work with or manage someone who works from home even if they're good at their job. They're just inherently not as available. So you're either stuck scheduling calls with them every time you want to talk, or waiting for their IM availability to turn green. It's inefficient even if you totally discount the social value of face to face interactions.

It's also not easy at most modern companies to just fire someone if they're slacking. Most HR/Legal teams want a lot of justification, evidence, documented warnings, etc. And justifiably so. But any office has its share of people who have learned where the bare minimum line is and are careful to stay just beyond it so they can stay employed. Giving every employee the opportunity to work from home as much as they want, regardless of tenure or reputation muddies that water.

WFH should definitely be more prevalent when things start up again. I'm fine with governments mandating it as long as there's a public health crisis going on, but after that we should leave it to companies to implement as appropriate for their own business.

Like I said, some jobs just aren’t as easy to move to work at home. If people are regularly needing to meet with bosses and coworkers, do work in teams, or generally need “managed,” then it’s harder to work remotely. Other positions are people working independently almost all the time and little is lost If they go remote (or at least more days remote). Though with things like MS Teams and similar remote work and managing is getting easier all the time.

I do lean toward just leaving it to businesses to realize they got as much or more work from at least some employees working from home and to be more flexible in their policies going forward. My main hang up with any requirements is it’s very hard to define what is “feasible” to work from home across companies.

I agree with some others that its better to offer incentives (i.e. payroll tax breaks) for allowing employees to work from home. There are a lot of social benefits to it like less traffic and pollution, better health from less stress and more free time due to more workers not having long commutes, smaller offices (lower energy use, some office buildings can be converted to apartments/condos to help housing supply) etc. That’s worth incentivizing IMO, but difficult to require or regulate.
 

lock2k

Banned
Is it about seeing your desktop, or even video of you?

No, not really.

They force several daily meetings and keep sending e-mails and text messages at any time to see if you are paying attention. While at the office I worked largely unsupervised most of the time and had like 3 meetings per month. It fucking sucks. And they have random demands just to see if you can do them quickly.
 
I'll be honest I'm shit at working from home, getting much less done

Like, me too. Kids have the family PC till 10. I browse for two hours. Family lunch. Kids have PC for two hours. I catch the final bit of sun in the garden. Dinner. Too tired to work. Rocket League.

Like, I'm failing my responsibilities as a dad and an employee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eot

SKM1

Member
No, not really.

They force several daily meetings and keep sending e-mails and text messages at any time to see if you are paying attention. While at the office I worked largely unsupervised most of the time and had like 3 meetings per month. It fucking sucks. And they have random demands just to see if you can do them quickly.

It seems to me that if an employer is coerced into allowing someone to work remotely he will probably do these things out of spite.
 

rykomatsu

Member
If you don't have worker rights you could be forced to work in hazardous conditions on a seven day week with wages less than a living wage... Thats serfdom.

Or...or...or...y'like know...maybe I could just opt not to work at that company. Candidates have choices you know.
 

spectyre

Member
Living in the past leads to irrelevancy in the future. That's why China and India are going to rise higher than America in the future.
I heard the same thing about the EU 15 years ago.

And when people talk about worker's rights, everyone says why can't we be more like China and India?
 
Last edited:

Patrick S.

Banned
Meanwhile a lady at my company who was doing an "Ausbildung" (German way of learning a job) was fired the other day, because she strongly demanded to be allowed to work in the home office from our boss, in front of several other colleagues. Like "I have a right to work from home because I have children!", in a harsh tone. Well, my boss basically told her she can stay at home all the time she wants now...
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
"Everyone who wants to and whose job allows it"

Sadly, I imagine enshrining this as a "right" in law will make a lot of companies just cease allowing working from home as an option.

Leave this shit up to the free market. Most of the developed world's offices are already moving in that direction. No one needs the government stepping in and demanding things be done a certain way when it comes to this issue.
 

Djau

Banned
Or...or...or...y'like know...maybe I could just opt not to work at that company. Candidates have choices you know.

If it was really that simple; all labor issues would have been solved already. The employer holds all the cards and there aren't enough jobs that a person can just walk from one into another.

This is why Unions are critical to society.

"Everyone who wants to and whose job allows it"

Sadly, I imagine enshrining this as a "right" in law will make a lot of companies just cease allowing working from home as an option.

Leave this shit up to the free market. Most of the developed world's offices are already moving in that direction. No one needs the government stepping in and demanding things be done a certain way when it comes to this issue.

Free market hasn't solved shit. Folks in america are working themselves to death on two jobs to pay bills; while abroad you only need one thanks to rights enshrined in law to protect the employee from exploitative employers.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Free market hasn't solved shit. Folks in america are working themselves to death on two jobs to pay bills; while abroad you only need one thanks to rights enshrined in law to protect the employee from exploitative employers.

Ain't nobody in a cushy office job that can be done from home "working themselves to death" to pay the bills, and if they are, it's only because of the life choices they made (borrow money in order to live well above their means, etc.).

Now, I'm not against worker rights, but jobs perks like this should never need to be legally enshrined. They should be part of the employer's offering to attract talent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Djau

Banned
Ain't nobody in a cushy office job that can be done from home "working themselves to death" to pay the bills, and if they are, it's only because of the life choices they made (borrow money in order to live well above their means, etc.).

Now, I'm not against worker rights, but jobs perks like this should never need to be legally enshrined. They should be part of the employer's offering to attract talent.

Thats way too much power for Employers and has empirically not shown any benefit for the worker.
 
Last edited:

Djau

Banned
It's too much power to be able to require people come into the office when deemed necessary? Nah, fuck that.

That's the important part. Noone says they couldn't go in the odd day. But we must start with flexible working as a minimum with either the choice to work at home as standard if available to the job type; or extra benefits in exchange for having to come in.

Makes the company more competitive, productive and better-suited for the future disasters of further epidemics, climate change, etc.
 
Last edited:

rykomatsu

Member
If it was really that simple; all labor issues would have been solved already. The employer holds all the cards and there aren't enough jobs that a person can just walk from one into another.

It is that simple - you either take the job or you don't. The only reason the employer "holds" all the cards is because candidates find the risk acceptable.

This is why Unions are critical to society.

Unions are for people that otherwise wouldn't be able to hold a non-unionized job.

Free market hasn't solved shit. Folks in america are working themselves to death on two jobs to pay bills; while abroad you only need one thanks to rights enshrined in law to protect the employee from exploitative employers.

Tell me another economic model that has raised as many people out of poverty as free market / capitalism has.
 

Djau

Banned
It is that simple - you either take the job or you don't. The only reason the employer "holds" all the cards is because candidates find the risk acceptable.



Unions are for people that otherwise wouldn't be able to hold a non-unionized job.



Tell me another economic model that has raised as many people out of poverty as free market / capitalism has.

Every EU country says hi.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
That's the important part. Noone says they couldn't go in the odd day. But we must start with flexible working as a minimum with either the choice to work at home as standard if available to the job type; or extra benefits in exchange for having to come in.

Makes the company more competitive, productive and better-suited for the future disasters of further epidemics, climate change, etc.

That's why it shouldn't be made as a law, because you need to very clearly define things when it's a law and you can't really leave room for arbitrary decisions about the constitutes "the odd day." Leave it up to arrangements between employers and employees. People will always choose companies that offer better work environments and accommodate the lifestyles of their employees, so companies will need to adapt to stay competitive. No need to force anything with laws in this case.
 

Djau

Banned
That's why it shouldn't be made as a law, because you need to very clearly define things when it's a law and you can't really leave room for arbitrary decisions about the constitutes "the odd day." Leave it up to arrangements between employers and employees. People will always choose companies that offer better work environments and accommodate the lifestyles of their employees, so companies will need to adapt to stay competitive. No need to force anything with laws in this case.

Downside of that is now you end up with backwards noncompetitive country plus you leave the employees as the ones being fucked over.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned



One of the jobs of a goverment is to ensure balance. The employer is in a stronger position. You need laws to prevent exploitations of employees.


Legislature, executive, judiciary ... Sue your employer. Afterwards he will find a way to get rid of you, but you will find another job and he will get his punishment.

For fuck’s sake, being required to do your job in the workplace instead of the home is not worker exploitation 😂 What the fuck happened to you Germans? You used to have teeth.

P.S. wb bro, how you been, yadda yadda
 

Papa

Banned
lmao

people here really think changing law is something that a government shouldn't do

lmao

I retract my previous statement. This is the most ignorant statement I’ve ever seen. Also an epic strawman. No one said that government shouldn’t be involved in changing laws, rather that this particular law is idiotic and not something government should be sticking its nose into.

lmao
 

Papa

Banned
The research says flexitime and/or home working; as well as offices that are much more spaced out between people, with a lot of windows and green plants (more O2) provide for much higher levels of productivity. More incentives for employees help too. Stuffy offices, crowded, dimly lit and stressful environments are all much worse.

Not everyone will like it; but theres no reason the majority of office work couldn't be done at home leaving that wasted space in office buildings freed to be used for more efficient tasks.

Which research?
 

Djau

Banned
Which research?




 

Papa

Banned




An Airtasker survey is not research you fucking amoeba 😂😂😂
 

Djau

Banned
Last edited:

Papa

Banned

Think I'm going to do all the work for you, pleb? Journal article reference is in the article.

lol you absolute moron

I wasn’t disputing your assertion that plants can make people happier in their workplace. I was asking for receipts for your claim that working from home definitively boosts productivity. All you’ve done is link me journalist clickbait garbo.

Arkage Arkage get itt!!!
 

Djau

Banned
Last edited:

Papa

Banned

In this case, 13% boost to productivity.

One case for a Chinese call center. A job where you can’t easily slack off in a country that punishes slackers harshly. When you’re talking about changing a law, you need to prove that it works in all cases, or at the very least the majority of cases.

How hard have you been googling rn btw? Your quick fire responses show you either had your references all lined up neatly prior to this conversation or you’re just linking me shit you haven’t read and don’t understand.
 

Djau

Banned
One case for a Chinese call center. A job where you can’t easily slack off in a country that punishes slackers harshly. When you’re talking about changing a law, you need to prove that it works in all cases, or at the very least the majority of cases.

How hard have you been googling rn btw? Your quick fire responses show you either had your references all lined up neatly prior to this conversation or you’re just linking me shit you haven’t read and don’t understand.

Proof of concept. Leave the rest for the Government to decide. Like I said; not all jobs can do this; but theres no reason a mostly digital office can't. Its not difficult to predict responses.

The jobs that can't will be replaced by automation anyway; like farmers, shop workers, even mine.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
Proof of concept. Leave the rest for the Government to decide. Like I said; not all jobs can do this; but theres no reason a mostly digital office can't. Its not difficult to predict responses.

The jobs that can't will be replaced by automation anyway; like farmers, shop workers, even mine.

You’re skipping over a lot of steps between “proof of concept” and “change the law”

I repeat, go get some real world experience before trying to change it, kiddo
 

Moogle11

Banned
Ain't nobody in a cushy office job that can be done from home "working themselves to death" to pay the bills, and if they are, it's only because of the life choices they made (borrow money in order to live well above their means, etc.).

Now, I'm not against worker rights, but jobs perks like this should never need to be legally enshrined. They should be part of the employer's offering to attract talent.

I largely agree even as someone strongly supportive of more flexible work options for more people. It’s better to leave it up to workers and employers to sort out.

Hopefully a lot of bosses/owners will see that many of their employees were as or more productive and that they can Save some money by downsizing office space etc. And hopefully workers who are loving it to push for more flexibility and find employers who will give them the work from home vs in office balance they want. I opted for lower (though still nice) income by taking a more flexible career path vs chasing max income in the corporate world and couldn’t be happy. Work-life balance is more important to me once at a level of having job security, a rainy day fund and an ok amount of disposable income.

It’s too complex to codify into law as it’s hard to define what jobs can easily be done remotely and with can’t. You also don’t want to get in the reverse where people who hate working from home are forced to long term. Some people can’t focus, it’s much harder with young kids if one partner is a stay at home parent and the other is trying to work, way harder for people in small houses or apartments without space for a nice home office etc.

it’s just not something that can be as easily standardized as things like,e overtime laws, maternity/paternity leave and so on as it’s near impossible to universally define what jobs can feasibly done remotely.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Free market hasn't solved shit. Folks in america are working themselves to death on two jobs to pay bills; while abroad you only need one thanks to rights enshrined in law to protect the employee from exploitative employers.
Another popular lie that is spread everywhere on the internet, but has no basis in reality :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Proof of concept. Leave the rest for the Government to decide. Like I said; not all jobs can do this; but theres no reason a mostly digital office can't. Its not difficult to predict responses.

The jobs that can't will be replaced by automation anyway; like farmers, shop workers, even mine.
Seriously, you need to wake up and live in the real world.

I can't believe people are still spouting this shit when we are literally seeing millions become unemployed.
 
Last edited:
In this thread, I learned there are huge differences on how americans and germans see working environments and the relationship between employer and employee...

Personally I'd love this to get through, off course.
I'd wager, though, that this will be detrimental to work efficiency on a larger scale.
 

Haemi

Member
For fuck’s sake, being required to do your job in the workplace instead of the home is not worker exploitation 😂 What the fuck happened to you Germans? You used to have teeth.
My sentence is a general statement. And i interpreted yours as one too. Being required to do your job in the workplace is no exploitation. And introducing a law to force the employer to allow work from home is unnecessary. There are benefits to working from home, like instead of going into parental leave you could still work for your company. But when you are that important to your employer, then you could negotiate instead of there being some law.
I just didn't like your twisting of arguments to have something to fire back.
 

Papa

Banned
My sentence is a general statement. And i interpreted yours as one too. Being required to do your job in the workplace is no exploitation. And introducing a law to force the employer to allow work from home is unnecessary. There are benefits to working from home, like instead of going into parental leave you could still work for your company. But when you are that important to your employer, then you could negotiate instead of there being some law.
I just didn't like your twisting of arguments to have something to fire back.

What twisting? Have you read the arguments of the guy I was responding to?
 
Top Bottom