Schorsch_baut
2023-07-06 11:56:20
- #1
For me, working from home is not regularly possible, only when it is clear that a report will take longer and I am not needed in the lab, then it works. But I also have flexible core working hours, during which I can sign out for two hours without any problems and without prior notification to take care of things, for example. However, this was completely different until five years ago. We had to be present from 7:30 to 12:00 and 14:00 to 17:30 without exception. Only when positions could not be filled because applicants—ok, mostly female applicants—politely declined, did flexibilization occur. Currently, we can work from 6 a.m. until 9 p.m. The goals must be met, and the team lead has to ensure that. It does not seem to have harmed productivity. I notice, however, that even after three years it still irritates me when I try to reach contacts or administrative staff in [homeoffice] and only get a callback after two hours. Some processes ran more smoothly when everyone was co-located and you knew where to find someone for a one-on-one conversation. Nevertheless, I support the right to [home office], where it makes sense, as it forces employers and supervisors to check employee performance in an intelligent way. The core working hours concept also has advantages in protecting employees, but sometimes the principle is implemented so rigidly that all you can do is shake your head. Is it unfair because there are professions that cannot work from [homeoffice]? I don’t think so. Ultimately, it is no different than the question of whether someone works in warmth in winter or has a job that forces them outside. Or having a private office with a cozy chair versus standing at an assembly line or treatment chair.