Maybe, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be the ultimate solution :)I believe the misunderstanding or your dispute is solely based on the fact that you have sympathy for your employer and the solution to the "problem" could be envy in the abolition of the home office. Oetti rather holds the view that the envy problem is not solved by this, but concealed.
He did say it, old-fashioned management. But the CEO will understand it eventually. Commuting distance etc. is not the employer's problem, but especially as a medium-sized company, finding good people is a problem again. And eventually, even the last one will realize that.We had a meeting this morning and he said, "If people in remote work are as productive as they claim, then they save time and should respond by reducing their weekly working hours. People are paid for 39 hours and then potentially only work 34 hours in remote work" .. or he said, "then I'd rather have them sit here than have them hang their laundry, shower, or load the dishwasher at home"..
But it happens, for example, that someone can do parts of their tasks from HO and hand over the parts that have to be done on site to the colleagues who are already on site anyway.
then they save time
Paid for 39 hours and then maybe only work 34 hours from HO
then I'd rather have them sitting here instead of hanging their laundry at home, showering, or unloading the dishwasher
a difficult topic, at least for us
The private use of a company car is always part of the salary. I also had to negotiate that. My boss drives a Daimler and I don’t feel disadvantaged because of that. Also, not everyone has a private office like I do. We are not in socialism, and status always comes with privileges.
That may be, but unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be the ultimate solution :)
I don't see it that way, because I can only look at it from the perspective of my workplace. We have no one in the warehouse who gets paid for anything, since the things are neither heavy nor hazardous. And it's not primarily about you or your workplace, as I said, I wanted to show that not all that glitters is gold.
You also have completely different conditions than we do, for example, we are a company of 45 people, 42 of whom can work from home, 3 cannot because of their workplace. But it also happens, for example, that someone can do parts of their tasks from home and hands over the parts that must be done on site to the colleagues who are already on site. I think it's totally great if it works like that for you.
We have great benefits, the only thing that simply doesn’t run smoothly is the issue of working from home.
Our current managing director will retire in June 2024, he agreed to working from home three years ago due to Corona. Since April, we have a second managing director who will replace the first. He is 48 and wants to cancel the company agreement because he misses the control mechanism! Which I also find old-fashioned, by the way.
We had a meeting this morning and he said, "If people are as productive at home as they claim, then they actually save time and should respond by reducing their weekly working hours. People are paid for 39 hours and then possibly only work 34 hours at home." ... or he said, "then I’d rather have them sitting here than hanging their laundry, showering, or loading the dishwasher at home."
It's a difficult topic, at least for us!