WFH Part Three (Final)

One more thing about the WFH environment. It has spawned massive quitting of jobs, so much so that it even has a name -- The Great Resignation. Do an internet search and you'll find all kinds of information about it.

It seems extended time at home got folks to rethinking a lot of things, including their careers. 

Some members of two-earner households decided they could get by on one income. 

Others decided life is too short to work for a toxic, narcissistic manager. 

Still others concluded, as I have mentioned previously, WFH is a good fit, and when their employer said, "Come back to the office," they said, "I don't think so," gave notice and found a job in which WFH is acceptable. 

It's fascinating stuff, and yet another example of how the pandemic has turned things upside down. 

Employers are in a dilemma, of course, as workers are quitting in droves. Companies are finding new ways to entice employees and I suspect some, who are harping on the "come back to the office" message, might have to back off a bit if they want to retain good employees. 

I don't ever remember it being like this, where workers have these kinds of choices. 

As for me, I'm hoping to ride my current train to retirement, WFH or not, although it's what I'm doing now and it looks as if it will last a while. 

I'm not ready to hang it up just yet. 

WFH Part Two

In my last post, I commented on some of the intricacies of the WFH (Working From Home) environment, specifically the impasse that seems to have been reached between some employers who want their employees back on site, and employees who would rather continue to work remotely. 

In some cases, employers will eventually say (and some have already said), "This gig is up. Come on back." 

But those employers who do that, do so at the risk of losing folks. As I previously said, right now good employees have the upper hand. 

And I suppose some employers are fine with that. Nobody is non-replaceable, they say. And I would agree with that. 

But then again, employers need good workers and even if they are saying they're not doing the WFH thing, how long will they be willing to see good employees leave and have to rehire and retrain? 

My blog friend TB had an insightful comment on my WFH post, explaining how he is a project manager and feels as productive -- even more productive -- working from home as he does if he were in his office. 

I am much the same way. TB also said, as part of the WFH world, we have had to become better communicators, and I couldn't agree more. But with everyone being available online, it is not overly difficult. 

Many companies were planning to bring folks back, at least part of the time, after Labor Day. But with the delta variant and increased cases, in many cases those plans were postponed. Some of us are now 18 months into remote working. 

If we have learned anything from the pandemic, it's that we don't know what we don't know, and I would not begin to predict anything. 

But I'll say this. If vaccination rates increase and we see a pattern of cases decreasing, say, over a period of 90 days, I think we'll see companies gearing up their "come back to the workplace" themes around the first of the year. But I've been wrong before. 

********************************

Of course bad apples spoil it for everyone, and there will always be folks who try to game the system. 

There are instances where WFH folks are holding down two jobs! I no longer have the link, but there was a WSJ (Wall Street Journal) piece a few weeks ago that reported on about a half-dozen folks who are managing two different positions. In return for confidentiality, they described to WSJ how they do it. 

They say they are able to manage their calendars and phones and strategically manipulate days off, with neither employer being the wiser. And they, of course, pleased to be receiving two salaries. Apparently there a more than a few folks out there doing it. 

Although incredibly deceitful and dishonest (you have to lie like cray to make it work), supposedly it's not illegal. 

But even if I could sink that low on a moral level, I couldn't handle the stress. 

WFH

The acronym that is the title of this post is WFH - Working From Home.

I don't know if the acronym predates COVID, but it has definitely come into its own since the beginning of the pandemic some 18 months ago. 

Many companies, after sending folks home in the beginning, brought folks back after a few months. Some have done it more gradually. Some have developed hybrid models, with a combination of working in the office and WFH. Others have maintained the WFH model. 

I find it fascinating to observe. The fact is, a lot of folks like WFH. They claim it saves them all kinds of commuting time and gas money. It helps with family life. 

All of that is understandable. 

Consequently, these folks would like to continue WFH. Some employers, however, want their employees on site. 

What is especially interesting to observe is the standoff between the employers who say, "Come back to the office" and the workers who say, "I don't want to."

I'm old school, so I tend to be of the opinion that WFH is not an entitlement. If your employer wants you on site, I suppose that's where you need to be if you want to keep your job with said employer. 

Or, if WFH has become a non-negotiable for you, perhaps you need to seek employment with an employer that will allow it. 

But therein lies a bit of the rub. We are at a place in history where employment is a seller's market, meaning many skilled employees have the upper hand, and many employers desperately need workers. 

"I'll see your 'you can't work from home' and raise you with 'see if you can find someone to fill this job that has my qualifications.' " 

Who is bluffing whom? It's hard to tell. 

But these are interesting times in the workplace.