´óÏó´«Ã½

Rory wrote:

"But I sense there is still reluctance by many employers to allow staff out of their sight. I asked a few people on a popular social network about their employer's policy."

Let me relate a true story: A while back when working from home was just starting in the Telecoms industry I recall the trial by BT of operators working from home. It was thought necessary by the management that each operator would have to make a video call to log in before they commenced work. This was to prevent someone-else from logging in as the worker and doing their job (as if!). Apparently this was a real fear by BT's management.

SO the poor old home workers had to dress just as if they were at work and as these were all women it meant that all the usual war paint had to be painstakingly applied etc. Apparently BT felt that even though the operators were never seen by customers that had to be presentable. The trial failed as you would expect as the operators felt too intimidated to work (or some such problem.) The trial was I think in Scotland.

So long as employers are as ridiculous as this working from home will never work!

To pick up a couple of points:

If you need to do face to face remotely, then immersive video is a reality. And trust me - if you haven't tried it (something like Cisco Telepresence) aside from being able to pass the biscuits from one side of the table to another, it's as good as being there. This kind of HD immerisive video is coming to the desktop too - look at what Vidyo are doing.

Second - I used to work for BT - indeed was a "case study" homeworker (been on Japanese TV for my troubles :) ) - and let me tell you, BT gets homeworking. At the last count it had about 80,000 flexible workers and over 12000 permanent homeworkers. They make a great success of it IMHO and save a shed load of money in the process.

Glad to see you acknowledge the fact that there is a world outside of London that couldn't care less about the tube strikes. What really interests me is that people will happily post things on Twitter about the strikes, but in real life all people do is try and avoid eye contact. Outside of London people are much friendlier.

On the topic of working from home, there is a lot of stuff that simply requires face to face contact to discuss. However, for 1 day it should be ok to work from home provided you have access to the stuff you need. In all honesty, managers could simply ask on the status of work that people are working on the next day to confirm that work was actually done and the day wasn't a total waste.

I think businesses are opening up to Teleconferenceing. 10 way Skype (v5 beta) video conferenceing is free. Compare that to a Train journey Cardiff to London (2 hours at £20ph wages plus £30 fare) costing £100 return per person, per day.

I'm surprised you didn't suggest this to your bosses Rory. What will you do when they all move to Salford?

I think employers are still reluctant to let people work from home because there is a feeling that they won't be as productive. As politically correct as it sounds to say otherwise I think they are largely right.

Technology can support us in working from home, but unless you are used to doing it taking the odd day to work from home isn't productive. There is a mindset involved people need to get used to when people try to work in a space that they are conditioned to relax in.

My advice would be either to let people work from home at least 2 days a week or not to bother.

Firstly, I'd like to say the experiment on the Ushahidi platform was quite impressive. I do recall Dr Alex Krototski's (sp) rubbishing the platform in her ´óÏó´«Ã½ series not too long ago, saying it was not fit for the western world! She didn't say it exactly in those words, but that's what I got.

Secondly, I think home working all depends on what the individual does and how efficiently they can do it away from the office. There are ways and means to supervise remote working, which is what those firms offering that flexibility should look into before venturing into it. I work in telecoms where it is very common to work from home. My employer uses all manner of tech to allow workers to keep in touch with colleagues constantly. By and large, it works very well, especially that for most people it's not an everyday thing, although we do have a few individuals who work from home and in the field permanently.

Conferencing and collaboration technology is not about replacing face to face meetings altogether.
It's much more about being able to hold meetings when it is not possible, for whatever reason, to meet face to face.
To be able to quickly and easily bring together all the right people at the right time without anyone having to leave their desks, regardless of where that desk might be.
How often do you actually need to 'see' the person you are meeting with?
Many of our business meetings can be conducted using an integrated audio and web conferencing solution.
All you need is access to the plain old telephone (fixed or mobile)for the audio piece and access to a PC/laptop with a broadband connection so you can share any content to be discussed.
What could be simpler.
Work from home, just as if you were in the office!

in real life all people do is try and avoid eye contact. Outside of London people are much friendlier

I hear things like this from northern friends quite a lot, but I think it's just a matter of what you consider to be friendly, and IMO (and I think that of most tube users) random strangers making direct eye contact with you when you're shut in a small metal box with them isn't it - it's intrusive and creepy.

In my experience, when something goes obviously wrong on he tube people will jump in to help out, so the friendliness is there, it's just the rest of the time the culture is to respect your personal space and privacy. That's still them being friendly though, it's just a difference of expectation.

6. At 4:17pm on 07 Sep 2010, EMC wrote:
...I think home working all depends on what the individual does and how efficiently they can do it away from the office.
----------------------------------------------
This means that pay will have to be based on piecework style contracts rather than an hourly rate. Simple.
The problem is that traditionally piecework is not remunerated in an equitable manner.

Sorry to say that the tube strike map didn't work for me - it meant nothing.

All that was needed was for TFL (or someone) to have a tube map on their HOME PAGE which highlighted which parts of the network WERE running.

I would have gone to work on the Central Line from Ealing Broadway to White City if i'd have know that that part of the iine was running - but amongst the mass of information that was out there, it wasn't clear. A nice clean, simple map - updated on a regular basis would have worked much better.

I have the day off work the next date of the proposed tube strike. So I might just have a crack of doing this myself, just by manually trawling all the tweets reporting on what stations/lines are open. It would have been very easy (and very nice) of someone at TFL to do this.

Working from home is fine as long as some accountability and tracking is possible. With clear results-based work, it's obvious whether you've put in the time.

Otherwise, employers are probably correct in being a little apprehensive about the idea, as most people will find it very difficult to resist the temptation to indulge just a little in the novel situation of working from home, at least to begin with.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?