PwC 'Tipping the Balance' of Hybrid Working and Will Start Tracking Its Workers' Locations (yahoo.com) 97
PwC has demanded staff spend less time working from home -- and it's going to start tracking their location to ensure they comply. From a report: The accountancy firm informed its 26,000 U.K. employees in a memo that from January they'll be expected to be at their desks -- or with clients -- at least three days a week, or for 60% of their time. Previously staff were expected to spend two to three days working in-person. What's more, to ensure staffers are not secretly working from home (or at a beach) when they shouldn't be, the company will monitor how often they're working from the office, in the same way it monitors how many chargeable hours they work. Every month, workers will be sent information about their "individual working location data" which will even be shared with their in-house career coaches, according to the Financial Times.
Why? (Score:2)
>Face-to-face working is hugely important to a people business like ours
Prove it. Let's see the data.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In that case, they deserve to pay either double going wage, or deserve to be unionized. Whichever comes first.
Re: (Score:1)
In that case, they deserve to pay either double going wage, or deserve to be unionized. Whichever comes first.
For what reason? I can guarantee many of these people worked in the office 5 days a week prior to covid and their pay was more than sufficient for that. If they're now at home they've been saving tons of money by not having to go into work. Going in 3 days out of 5 will still save them money.
If the company wants to ensure they're not on vacation when they're supposed to be at work, this is a good way of doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Going in 3 days out of 5 will still save them money.
Not very much.. a weekly train card tends to be cheaper than 5 daily fares, but if you're now buying 3 daily fares instead of a weekly card there's not a huge saving.
Similarly if you drive you still need a car and all the associated maintenance/insurance costs, so you only save 2 days worth of gas.
Re:Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good to see that you value your own time at $0/hr. And that you haven't considered the cost of parking if your employer doesn't have a paid-for lot for you to use.
The time spent sitting on the train, or in traffic counts too.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, at this point, commuting time needs to be paid if you're going to force people to do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Going in 3 days out of 5 will still save them money.
Not very much.. a weekly train card tends to be cheaper than 5 daily fares, but if you're now buying 3 daily fares instead of a weekly card there's not a huge saving. Similarly if you drive you still need a car and all the associated maintenance/insurance costs, so you only save 2 days worth of gas.
So for the people who must have a physical presence - You must support them being paid more?
I have no issue with 100 percent work at home. But people who insist on it have a much higher estimate of their worth than they actually do. I've seen enough people in here claiming that the best programmers and IT peopel work from home, and businesses have no choice but to do but accept that.
Oddly, no one in here believes that people who don't work very hard also would prefer to be un-monitored.
I work half fr
Re: (Score:2)
There's a bit difference between working from home and un-monitored if the manager is even vaguely competent. If the manager is a glorified babysitter, working at home will certainly be more productive.
PWC sells to corporate executives (Score:2)
PwC sells consulting, tax and other to corporate executives. They would not go against the basic wants of the corporate executives.
Meeting in person, exerting influence, seeing the positive and negative effects of said influence is a good part of upper management's 1% personality type traits.
Re: (Score:2)
If the manager is competent then he will have much better ways of measuring his employee's productivity than "number of hours spent in office". Things like keeping track of the employee's output, are they getting their assigned tasks completed on time and to a sufficiently high standard? Are they getting good feedback from colleagues and/or customers they work with?
You're employed to do a particular job, what matters is how well you do the job you're employed for. Not how many hours you sit in a particular
Re: (Score:2)
So for the people who must have a physical presence - You must support them being paid more?
YES, a thousand times yes. The way we undervalue face to face customer service in this country is a travesty.
Re: (Score:2)
So for the people who must have a physical presence - You must support them being paid more?
YES, a thousand times yes. The way we undervalue face to face customer service in this country is a travesty.
Boom! We are in 100 percent perfect agreement
Re: Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Reason? There doesn't need to be a reason beyond workers wanting to negotiate work cobditions with management. Ultimately it is a two way street. Employers need people to make a business work, and people need jobs to pay their bills. As long as both sides can negotiate on roughly equal footing,I don't see the problem. Of course this can mean the creation of a union in order to counter an assymetric relationship.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
People with specialized skills that are in demand have a better bargaining position than people who are unskilled or in a trade that isn't experiencing growth. So it stands to reason that a union is less vital for those industries. Of course, I suspect once IT workers are living paycheck to paycheck that the calculus changes and we will see more frequent demands from organized labor. Of course, we also live in a very anti-union era, where politicians are actively trying to undo the protections put into plac
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, looking at GDP vs wages, they were probably underpaid than. I doubt they've had a raise to compensate for inflation since.
Certainly, the people demanding in office deserve to pay higher taxes to support the extra infrastructure and environmental damage the commute causes.
Based on my experience, it's perfectly possible for someone to show up every day and not be even mildly productive the whole time. Some of those people could actually improve office productivity by staying home so they don't inter
Re: (Score:2)
A business that has a work from home policy has to change the way it measures worker performance. This requires the manager to have a basic understanding of what a worker is supposed to produce in a given amount time. If the company usually promotes from within, i.e. managers once did the work of those they manage, then this is not a problem at all. In fact, switching to output-based measurement would improve efficiency as the better workers are identified faster and given more responsibilities.
However, not
Re: (Score:2)
However, buts in seats is a poor metric even if you have a 100% in office policy for unrelated reasons. It's just too easy to sit around and do nothing useful all day. If the manager doesn't have anything better, they're just not up to the job.
Effective metrics for in-office work will also be effective for work from home.
Perhaps the metrics they need to look at most are manager's effectiveness and productivity.
Re:Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
quonset observed:
If the company wants to ensure they're not on vacation when they're supposed to be at work, this is a good way of doing it.
I didn't know that misery and drudgery were in my scope of work.
As long as I am meeting my deliverables it shouldn't matter one single flying finger of fuck were I am, and what I'm doing outside of the 8 hours I am supposed to be working. Does my employer care if I'm having gay sex with a flaming goat while sky diving on the weekend? Why would they care if I'm having a cup on the Seine river when I'm off their clock? Or doing my work in my hotel, or while on a cruise?
Misery, and intrusive PHB's adds not one whit of advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are generally told what "coverage hours" they're expected to be in the workplace,
If the scope of work includes a need for a physically being there, then being in the office is within the scope of work. I don't need to be there to admin 600,000 servers. In fact, I can't be physically there for that many servers in 58 data centers around the world. That's why those data centers have a person there to swap out a dead drive, attach a crash cart, or plug the power back in if it vibrates loose - those are jobs
Re: (Score:2)
What we learned during COVID was most of those reasons were utter bullshit.
Re:Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the company wants to ensure they're not on vacation when they're supposed to be at work, this is a good way of doing it.
If a company needs freaking location detection to tell whether you are in the office or not, then what the heck is the advantage of making you be there?
Re: (Score:2)
There's been inflation since COVID, especially in fuel prices. Commuting has become a financial hardship.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a while since I worked as a consultant, but the rates were far more than 2x the full timer's rates. Even then it was still not worth it to me personally, I'd rather have the reliable pay and not have to worry about running my own business.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly. I'm currently looking.
Remote W2- I'm willing to accept $65/hr
I add $1/hr/mile for hybrid or onsite.
1099 is $150/hr.
http://www.informationr.us/ [informationr.us]
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, they deserve to pay either double going wage, or deserve to be unionized. Whichever comes first.
These workers will be paid based on the job market. If there are no easy replacements, then threats to quit have to be met with pay raises. If there are easy replacements, then the threats to quit will be met with apathy.
The job market has been worsening (from the viewpoint of workers) over the last two years. Based on that alone, the employers know that they now have leverage in imposing rules on workers, leverage that they didn't have two years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
All the more reason for labor to fight back. Let the idiots hire idiots who are willing to be slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Je Suis Marxiste, Tendance Groucho
https://www.informationr.us/ [informationr.us]
Re: (Score:2)
No we we were discussing Rich assholes (Score:1)
And I was pointing out that we didn't have to put up with that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why' could be (and probably is) no deeper than "because upper management wants it that way".
"Why" could also be because upper management has investments in commercial office space.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they dont require ANY data for this. you WFH retards having been pushing this since covid and its asinine. you agreed to the rules they put forth, if you dont like it, leave. you don't have any other option. grow the fuck up and show up in the office once in a while you lazy fat fucks.
That is why all the top talent begins looking for a new job as soon as companies put idiotic policies like this in place without communicating any relevant metrics as to why they're doing it. And then people like you whine that "no one wants to work" when you can't find equivalent replacements.
Re: (Score:2)
"idiotic policies" like "you must work while you are claiming to work"
OHMYGOD grow up.
Just because you don't get any work done while working from home doesn't mean others don't.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about "fuck you" ?
I was hired to a remote position. I will continue to work that remote position remotely. And just because you have hangups about controlling when, where, and how people get their work done, it doesn't mean that everyone does. Maybe if you were less of a tyrant, you wouldn't feel compelled to post anonymous?
If the work gets done, is spec-complete, of expected quality, and finished on time; why do you give a shit where it's done unless you're just wanting to control other people's lives?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just ignore the rules (Score:5, Informative)
As much as I think the return to office stuff is dumb and people should be able to work from wherever they want as long as they get their work done, I think it is dumber that people think they can just ignore the company rules and never be punished. Yes, the rules suck. Yes they are arbitrary and usually not applied to upper management. But the thought that you can just ignore them and do whatever you want and never be punished is just silly. Part of working for a company is following the rules they put forward. You deserve to be fired if you just blatantly ignore the rules put forth by the company. I fully support people getting the rules changed. I fully support people quitting and getting a job that is better for WFH. But just pretending the rules aren't there are they don't apply to you is ignorant and you deserve to be fired.
Re:You can't just ignore the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem comes when a company shifts to WfH, and people move outside a reasonable commuting distance, then the company reverts and people can't afford to move back.
But beyond that, it very much seems that return-to-office mandates are just disguised layoffs. Companies always prefer to drive you out rather than pay you out, and the ones running the show don't have any particular interest in being fair or honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do tech support for people who work around the world. I know of many companies where most of their work is mainly clerical in nature, and they are much more competitive because they don't need an office and can hire from almost anywhere.
The employees seem happier on average, too. I've met a couple of digital nomads this way, they call in from wherever they have decided to be. Seems kind of awesome, but I'm a bit too into consistency and predictability to be somewhere different every week or two.
Re:You can't just ignore the rules (Score:5, Funny)
How about fuck you, you unnecessarily abrasive dick?
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time you posted a comment where you weren't being a raging asshole? Maybe Slashdot isn't for you if you're always angry and offensive when you're here.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Slashdot isn't for you if you're always angry and offensive when you're here.
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure your contact says your place of work is at home.
Re: (Score:3)
So here's what I have learned from talking to some people who implemented work from home policies.
Companies are required to pay the taxes for a location which an employee works. So... if they are working in a neighboring state, the company has to calculate the taxes to be withheld for that state on the days that the employee works from home.
Now have an employee that decides to wonder aimlessly from state to state and how much overhead that puts on human resources and accounting. An employee frustrated, de
Why not? (Score:1)
If this was affecting their productivity they wouldn't have to track the locations it would just show up in their productivity numbers.
What you doing is the classic IT'S NOT FAIR! Fallacy where you're willing to allow an authoritarian to tell you what to do because you feel like somebody at your same level is breaking the rules when does rules are nonsensical and designed to benefit the authoritarian at your expense.
In this case work fr
Re: (Score:2)
See this comment because it paints the picture perfectly.
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You deserve to be fired if you just blatantly ignore the rules put forth by the company.
Perhaps. But I ignored the rules, and got a raise and a bonus this year.
I haven't worked in the office since 2020.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The deal you agreed to is meaningless in my country; we have at will employment.
Re: (Score:2)
At least some employers did back off on return to office when confronted with the push back of people simply not complying.
Re: (Score:2)
As others have responded, sometimes pushing back against the rules winds up getting the rules changed.
An employer might set a policy, but might not actually be committed to that policy. If there is a big negative pushback, they might relent. Humans are like that.
This doesn't always work, of course. Those who push back (possibly by simply refusing to follow the rules) might very well be fired. That's a risk they are choosing to take. If they are confident they can find another job, then it may very well
In-house career coach (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing that a company wants people to succeed and offers the support to do so. How horrible. No way that's worth going back to the office a few days a week.
"in-house career coaches" (Score:4, Funny)
workers will be sent information about their "individual working location data" which will even be shared with their in-house career coaches
I'm sure that visits from these "coaches" are welcome stress-relievers.
Re: (Score:2)
workers will be sent information about their "individual working location data" which will even be shared with their in-house career coaches
I'm sure that visits from these "coaches" are welcome stress-relievers.
... along with their helpful Performance Improvement Plans.
Re:Y'all don't want to hear it (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice, posted as anonymous. Apparently, you know you don't have actual facts behind your argument.
The truth is that the issue remains hotly debated. https://www.shrm.org/topics-to... [shrm.org]
There are many companies that have made remote work work for them. These are companies that actually value their people, and in return, the employees are highly productive despite remote work.
There are many other companies that treat you like a cog in a machine. In these places, remote work doesn't work, because people who work for these companies will try to get away with whatever they can.
So the answer is, it depends.
Re: The other 3 of the Big 4 (Score:2)
Well I left EY in part because they wanted 3 days in the London office per week as a minimum. They said that learning from others at work is fundamental.
One thing is to visit clients and work with others in the same room, another is to sit at an expensive office after an expensive train journey just for the promise of learning from overhearing others at work.
Who really cares? (Score:2)
If you are getting the work done in your house or somewhere else? Judge employees of of the work they are doing.
Brexit paying dividends! (Score:2)
It's amazing how much better life is without those pesky regulations in the EU which prevent employers from doing this. /s
When I first moved to Europe I thought it absurd that employers can't track every detail of the employees. But after a seeing how companies still functioned despite the inability to treat employees like shit I've come around.
Especially since my own employer is doing the same thing to us. And by "us" I mean all non-EU based office employees in the company. My American based line manager i
Re: (Score:2)
Which EU reg mandates that companies allow employees to dictate where they'll work?
Re: (Score:2)
Which EU reg mandates that companies allow employees to dictate where they'll work?
None. But I'm not sure why you are posting something so off topic. Try reading my post to see what is actually being discussed and then join the conversation like a real adult.
Re: (Score:2)
PwC is probably right for PwC (Score:2)
A company that does this kind of monitoring of its people, is demonstrating that it doesn't trust its people. The best performers want to be in a place where they are trusted, and will choose not to work for the PwCs of the world. Those who don't care so much, will take such drudge work jobs, and those are the same kinds of people who will try to get away with stuff like not working so much when they are doing work remotely. So they're probably not wrong, but their conclusions do not apply everywhere.
My company tried this too (Score:4, Interesting)
They made it mandatory for people who live in places where the company has an office, to work in an office, 5 days a week. Yes, there are remote workers like me, and we get away with it because we don't leave anywhere near an office, and the company isn't ready to actually cut us all loose.
BUT they've found that this approach has backfired. In some departments, employee turnover is more than 50% per year. Entire departments have quit all at once. By contrast, the software development teams, which have a lot of remote workers, have about a 15% annual turnover rate. Thankfully, the company is starting to wake up and realize that it has to treat people a little more like humans, and is starting to make things more flexible for those who are in-office.
I don't see this trend "gaining steam." The companies that already treat people like dirt, will be the ones that insist on in-office work. The ones that care about their people, will not be tempted to force such arbitrary rules on their team, opting instead to keep their people happy. And they in turn will be highly productive.
Re: (Score:2)
By contrast, the software development teams, which have a lot of remote workers, have about a 15% annual turnover rate.
Your company thinks a 15% turnover rate is good? It must really suck working there.
Let the market decide. (Score:2)
This isn't a company town or a locked in labour force. It's not a monopoly. People who have been with the company since before lockdown started don't have a whole lot of leverage here. The conditions under which they were hired will probably be considered the baseline if it comes down to a court challenge.
People hired under "work from home" scenarios have a more complicated situation. They should look closely at their contract and see what it has to say on the topic. Their baseline is different. For a look
How? (Score:3)
The headline implies more invasive methods.
'Tracking Workers' Locations' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Tracking worker's locations" sounds a lot more expansive than just keeping track of the hours spent at work. Nobody ever called punching a time clock "tracking worker's location" but measuring how many hours you're "at" work is exactly what it is for.
Automation ... will lower the costs of tracking.
Just quit. (Score:2)
If you don't like who you're working for or their policies, just quit.
Pointless (Score:2)
PwC will either change this policy or lose their workforce to competitors who do allow remote work options.
Besides, the only reasons the whole " return to office " is even a thing is:
1) Corporate Real Estate values are falling off a cliff
2) Other businesses that rely on employees in a local office ( think local restaurants ) are shutting down due to lack of business
3) This impacts metro tax revenues
4) Stealth layoffs ( my company anyway )
For any given business where hands on equipment and / or face-to-f
PwC doesnâ(TM)t want to announce layoffs (Score:2)
This is just the new normal way to layoff and not show how poor of a future forecast you have internally.