9 ms·

Data set seems off as the sampling heavily biases to Tech, Law and consulting and away from Retail, Logistics and Primary Industries all of which are a higher p

by jlawer 5y ago

Data set seems off as the sampling heavily biases to Tech, Law and consulting and away from Retail, Logistics and Primary Industries all of which are a higher proportion of the Australian workforce. Additionally companies such as Coles and Woolworths (Supermarket chains) are listed as 100% Remote, where as this is only going to be for a small proportion of their workforce. The change is happening, and I work for an energy company where they literally do not have the office space for 100% of staff to be back in the office (currently target 50%). So the change is happening, but I don’t think its as far along as this data states. I can say from a recruitment perspective there are many candidates who want a significant pay bump to go back to 100% office.

zamadatix 5y ago
Note these numbers are specifically about returning to the office so it's expected numbers for workplaces like supermarkets and such will differ wildly from looking at where a typical employee in these sectors will be as the vast majority are not office workers.
- jlawer 5y ago
  The companies behind the supermarkets have large back office complexes. The size of the back office tends to be proportional to the turnover of the companies. I’m Australia retail and primary industries make a substantial proportion of that.
shrimp_emoji 5y ago
>Retail, Logistics and Primary Industries all of which are a higher proportion of the Australian workforce Ah, yes, the main portion of workers-from-home.
- jlawer 5y ago
  Santos, Shell, Woodside, Super Retail Group, AACo are all large companies with massive back office operations which aren’t listed. The fact they may have many more non-office workers doesn’t mean they don’t have large offices
  - a10c 5y ago
    Back office operations != retail
    - jlawer 5y ago
      No, but if you read the original article, it describes the policies by companies. Obviously a company has many different type of roles, however when you describe office workers, comparatively there are a significant proportion who work for organizations in industries that are not represented. Retail companies have huge office staff to organize new products, marketing, purchasing, logistics and finance. Should they not count because the company also runs a supermarket or boutique? I was simply saying that the figures may be overrepresented. The original title when I posted heavily focused on the 7.2% of companies who say they will force 100% in office. That number seems very low to me and looking through the data I noticed that the sample doesn't represent many of the largest employers in the country. The new title rectifies that.
dannyw 5y ago
With petrol surging and public transport easily hitting A$12 a return trip, plus the associated time, it's easy to see why.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  Curious to know where you get that $12 figure from.
  - boyter 5y ago
    For me that’s right on the money. $6 each way for me to visit the city on the train. I’m at the end of the line though, but not super far out of the city.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    Different market, but Zone2-1 (a perfectly common commute) is £5.80 return = AU$10.18 in London. Considering Zone2 is aspirational for many, not to mention those who'd rather live in the home counties (i.e. 'suburbs' I suppose) and get a certainly much more expensive train in (and then the tube) I don't find $12 questionable at all. But markets do differ! Interested to hear if that really is outrageous sounding in Australia.
    - hedora 5y ago
      Hah. East SF Bay to South Bay is $38 for one day, or $320 per month (Berkeley to San Jose on Amtrak). Also, it takes 1.5 hours on the train each way. This is only 42 miles platform to platform. Also, no public transit syncs with the train on either end.
    - astrec 5y ago
      Not at all outrageous. I live in Melbourne, zone 1, and paid AUD$9.20 return yesterday.
    - emj 5y ago
      In Stockholm a 70km distance by train is about 1h20m, 8.5 USD for two trips in one day or 100 USD per month. On the old commuter trains that makes about 18 stops.
hedora 5y ago
I could see demanding more. Being in an open office bullpen and commuting are both wastes of my time, on balance. If they're willing to freely waste my time, then they must also be willing to freely waste their payroll budget. May as well demand more, as I'll clearly value the money more than my employer. Also, quality of life matters. I want an office with a closable, opaque door and adequate ventilation. I'll provide it for free, or my employer can. If I don't have it, then I want hazard pay.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  Office space is a waste of money, and has massive over supply right now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- IMTDb 5y ago
  > I'll provide it for free, or my employer can Might be anecdotal data, but from what I have seen, the amount of people that are working from home with proper equipment and dedicated space is really small. People work with their residential internet connection, which sometimes works well, and sometimes doesn't. They work on their kitchen counter on the 13" laptop screen on a hard stool. They work while their children are watching TV or doming homework in the same room on wednesday afternoon. They work while the maid is doing the vacuum cleaning. I could go on, but you get the idea. If the offices where half as bad as those working conditions, there (rightfully) would be an uproar among the worker explaining how unproductive they are because of the bad conditions. But somehow all these problem magically have no effect anymore when they happen at home. So business choose to provide a free place with premium computer screens so you can juggle all these windows, ergonomic chairs so your back won't hurt, both quiet and more social places depending on your mood, fiber internet connection with mesh wifi and redundant connection so your call don't look like a 3 FPS 640x480 GIF . And they'll ask that employees spend at least a bit of time in those.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    "They work on their kitchen counter on the 13" laptop screen on a hard stool... They work while the maid is doing the vacuum cleaning." Thats not the case for any of 20 friends and coleaguea I know. Every colleague I know (not counting interns, etc) has a equal or better setup than what we get in the office, from display to office chair. I can understand how this was an issue early in the pandemic, when change was sudden. I can also understand how this could be an issue for some junior staff, who aren't paid enough to rent a home with enough space. However if we are talking well-paid bracket, working from home is cheaper than commuting, dining, etc. Especially if they can afford a maid. It is fundamentally idiotic and wastefull to move millions of people every day into the office and then back out, through traffic jams, wasting resources, causing pollution and deaths through accidents. So much for capitalism being efficient.
seb1204 5y ago
I agree. For us, Sydney area equipment engineering company there are many that plan to go to the office for one or two days. Our leaders support this.
a10c 5y ago
I don't think there's anything particularly insightful in including the data of traditional retail workers. There's no scenario where they would be working from home, so it's the same as not including them.

by jlawer 5y ago

zamadatix 5y ago

Note these numbers are specifically about returning to the office so it's expected numbers for workplaces like supermarkets and such will differ wildly from looking at where a typical employee in these sectors will be as the vast majority are not office workers.

jlawer 5y ago
The companies behind the supermarkets have large back office complexes. The size of the back office tends to be proportional to the turnover of the companies. I’m Australia retail and primary industries make a substantial proportion of that.

shrimp_emoji 5y ago

>Retail, Logistics and Primary Industries all of which are a higher proportion of the Australian workforce Ah, yes, the main portion of workers-from-home.

jlawer 5y ago
Santos, Shell, Woodside, Super Retail Group, AACo are all large companies with massive back office operations which aren’t listed. The fact they may have many more non-office workers doesn’t mean they don’t have large offices
- a10c 5y ago
  Back office operations != retail
  - jlawer 5y ago
    No, but if you read the original article, it describes the policies by companies. Obviously a company has many different type of roles, however when you describe office workers, comparatively there are a significant proportion who work for organizations in industries that are not represented. Retail companies have huge office staff to organize new products, marketing, purchasing, logistics and finance. Should they not count because the company also runs a supermarket or boutique? I was simply saying that the figures may be overrepresented. The original title when I posted heavily focused on the 7.2% of companies who say they will force 100% in office. That number seems very low to me and looking through the data I noticed that the sample doesn't represent many of the largest employers in the country. The new title rectifies that.

dannyw 5y ago

With petrol surging and public transport easily hitting A$12 a return trip, plus the associated time, it's easy to see why.

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
Curious to know where you get that $12 figure from.
- boyter 5y ago
  For me that’s right on the money. $6 each way for me to visit the city on the train. I’m at the end of the line though, but not super far out of the city.
- OJFord 5y ago
  Different market, but Zone2-1 (a perfectly common commute) is £5.80 return = AU$10.18 in London. Considering Zone2 is aspirational for many, not to mention those who'd rather live in the home counties (i.e. 'suburbs' I suppose) and get a certainly much more expensive train in (and then the tube) I don't find $12 questionable at all. But markets do differ! Interested to hear if that really is outrageous sounding in Australia.
  - hedora 5y ago
    Hah. East SF Bay to South Bay is $38 for one day, or $320 per month (Berkeley to San Jose on Amtrak). Also, it takes 1.5 hours on the train each way. This is only 42 miles platform to platform. Also, no public transit syncs with the train on either end.
  - astrec 5y ago
    Not at all outrageous. I live in Melbourne, zone 1, and paid AUD$9.20 return yesterday.
  - emj 5y ago
    In Stockholm a 70km distance by train is about 1h20m, 8.5 USD for two trips in one day or 100 USD per month. On the old commuter trains that makes about 18 stops.

hedora 5y ago

I could see demanding more. Being in an open office bullpen and commuting are both wastes of my time, on balance. If they're willing to freely waste my time, then they must also be willing to freely waste their payroll budget. May as well demand more, as I'll clearly value the money more than my employer. Also, quality of life matters. I want an office with a closable, opaque door and adequate ventilation. I'll provide it for free, or my employer can. If I don't have it, then I want hazard pay.

anothernewdude 5y ago
Office space is a waste of money, and has massive over supply right now.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
IMTDb 5y ago
> I'll provide it for free, or my employer can Might be anecdotal data, but from what I have seen, the amount of people that are working from home with proper equipment and dedicated space is really small. People work with their residential internet connection, which sometimes works well, and sometimes doesn't. They work on their kitchen counter on the 13" laptop screen on a hard stool. They work while their children are watching TV or doming homework in the same room on wednesday afternoon. They work while the maid is doing the vacuum cleaning. I could go on, but you get the idea. If the offices where half as bad as those working conditions, there (rightfully) would be an uproar among the worker explaining how unproductive they are because of the bad conditions. But somehow all these problem magically have no effect anymore when they happen at home. So business choose to provide a free place with premium computer screens so you can juggle all these windows, ergonomic chairs so your back won't hurt, both quiet and more social places depending on your mood, fiber internet connection with mesh wifi and redundant connection so your call don't look like a 3 FPS 640x480 GIF . And they'll ask that employees spend at least a bit of time in those.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "They work on their kitchen counter on the 13" laptop screen on a hard stool... They work while the maid is doing the vacuum cleaning." Thats not the case for any of 20 friends and coleaguea I know. Every colleague I know (not counting interns, etc) has a equal or better setup than what we get in the office, from display to office chair. I can understand how this was an issue early in the pandemic, when change was sudden. I can also understand how this could be an issue for some junior staff, who aren't paid enough to rent a home with enough space. However if we are talking well-paid bracket, working from home is cheaper than commuting, dining, etc. Especially if they can afford a maid. It is fundamentally idiotic and wastefull to move millions of people every day into the office and then back out, through traffic jams, wasting resources, causing pollution and deaths through accidents. So much for capitalism being efficient.

seb1204 5y ago

I agree. For us, Sydney area equipment engineering company there are many that plan to go to the office for one or two days. Our leaders support this.

a10c 5y ago

I don't think there's anything particularly insightful in including the data of traditional retail workers. There's no scenario where they would be working from home, so it's the same as not including them.