SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?
-
@Carnival-Boy said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
On top of work, there's the usual life things - raising two teenagers, looking after elderly parents, maintaining the house, physical and mental health issues, exercising, the usual stuff everyone deals with. I'd like to have more time for hobbies but never seem to. I used to be pretty serious about photography but haven't touched my camera in a few years. Heck, I'd like to have more time for sleep!
Keeping a work/life balance is hard. Scott will say work is life, but sometimes I'm spending time with my kids and I'm only giving them 50% because my mind is whirling through all the things I need to do for my clients, which makes me feel terrible.I do, a bit, but I think people always get it backwards. And for exactly the reason that you say. I bolded where you said, sometimes your brain isn't all there (with your kids.) This is exactly why I say work is life (and life is work.)
When you do the 40 hour by the clock thing, this is a trick employers (and governments sadly now) use to make people work extra. Why? Because when clocked in, they control you. When clocked out, knowledge workers like us have to keep all of that stuff loaded in our brains. We can't just turn that off, even when we are at home trying to hang out with the kids! It's unfair. A factory worker might be able to do that, but we cannot.
That's why I don't believe in that system. Work IS GOING TO INTRUDE in our lives. It is, period. I can't stop that, you can't stop that, our employers can't stop that, the law can't either. Nothing can stop it, because it is intrinsic to doing knowledge based work. So what is the answer?
The only answer I know of is embracing it instead of ignoring it or denying it. Make work and life able to overlap. That doesn't mean working during your off time (more than necessary for your brain to be there), but having family time during work hours or whatever. It's bidirectional.
This is why I push for people to work from home, to comingle equipment and so forth. It takes a LOT of work to do our jobs well. If we doing let our personal lives overlap with work, we either do poorly or we burn out. My kids can hang out with me when I work, I'm home with them all day, they hang out with coworkers. Sometimes work interrupts time with my kids, but just as much my kids can interrupt my work. Sure, they don't pop into meetings, but if I need to unload work stuff at night, I can. And if I need to do family stuff during the day, I can.
Is it perfect? No. But is it way, way better? Yeah, I think so. More family time, more productivity. Everyone wins, especially the kids.
-
@Carnival-Boy said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Like I guess most people on this forum, I'm just clinging on and doing my best!
I think that this resonates with how I feel. I feel like people who stringently push for this hard separation between work and personal lives whether it is how they clock in/out, how equipment is selected or otherwise, tend to also have this feeling of being overwhelmed, overworked, and it all being just about as much as they can handle. But I rarely get that same feeling from people who allow themselves to work in a flexible, merged way.
I'm sure employers and work environments that encourage the one over the other are a big factor too. I'm not saying it is all one thing or another.
I work more like 80-100 hours per week, and I agree that getting sleep is really hard for sure (that's more about my dogs than my work, though) but I get tons and tons of time with my kids. We are together many hours every day. And I'm always here when they want me to be around. I couldn't do that if I tried to make this hard line between work and home. I don't know anyone who can. But because I don't do that, because the two bleed into one another I perceive that that is a big component in making the difference in approach.
-
Anytime we try to identify "what good looks like", someone doesn't make that bar. I'm a great example.
Something I've learned strongly is that university provides heavy negatives for candidates. University training tends to make people slow and rigid, lack the ability to grow on their own and so forth. But it's more than that, going to university reflects a decision to go down that path.
And that sucks, for me, because I went to uni, more than once. I got multiple degrees. And I have to admit that I was a huge idiot, wasted tons of time and money, and the only major benefit I garnered was knowing solidly just how foolish it is (and having gone to top ranked private schools, medium ranked public schools, several states, different programs, doing every level available in the US, etc.) I have this broad exposure that even most normal uni graduates lack - most doing a single program at a single school or so. But in looking for the best candidates yes, I have to acknowledge that in that area I don't shine, at all. I have a blight on my record that I can never expunge. It doesn't mean I can't learn from that and improve, but it shows a lot of gaps in my mental processes at that stage in my life that likely still exist. Maybe I'm more guarded against them now, but logically, they are still there.
But while that makes me feel badly, as an IT person, and a hiring manager, as a representative of a business I can't look the other way. I have to still recognize that a candidate who did the same things as me but faster, on their own, would look like a better candidate all things being equal.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
You are attempting to make me feel badly for wanting to hire and promote based on performance. This isn't a welfare program. We have a fiduciary duty here. Ethics alone say that we have to think this way. Anything else is just stealing from the investors.
No, I’m saying your myopic world view means you’re not going to hire the best candidates. I don’t care how you feel.
-
@Carnival-Boy said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
You are attempting to make me feel badly for wanting to hire and promote based on performance. This isn't a welfare program. We have a fiduciary duty here. Ethics alone say that we have to think this way. Anything else is just stealing from the investors.
No, I’m saying your myopic world view means you’re not going to hire the best candidates. I don’t care how you feel.
In what way is it myopic? The best candidates, those that can grow and provide the best are those that are passionate and doing the job because they love it rather than because it's a job. It's a field and career that they love and they don't really see it as a job at all. Will there be an exception to that? Maybe, but likely, no.
The market is full of amazingly passionate and skilled candidates that get passed over because of hiring practices that favour everything but actual performance (often because it placates middle managers and their egos.) There isn't a shortage of amazing candidates, only a problem finding them or isolating them. So finding ways to identify the best performing candidates is really, really important.
Given the obvious fact that specific skills are irrelevant to any serious hiring, passion and aptitude are far and away the most important things that we need to look at when hiring. They are things we can't teach, specific skills even in IT are pretty easy to teach quite quickly as needed, as long as the passion and aptitude are there.
I'd be very interested in how you approach the hiring process to look for those things.
-
I have been WFH for a long time and feel passionately that if I’m doing work, the it’s on something work provided. The only time I would consider using my own hardware would be if the work hardware fails and I am waiting for the hardware to be fixed.
-
I am reacting to the video and discussions on this page. My example provides an example scenario which could happen. I own a deceive, it is my device, and I decide to give my device to somebody else. I no longer have it. Therefore, I have no device to work on. This is one reason why it is entirely expected by myself and many others that work must provide devices. You expect me to be able to work, then provide the tools to do so.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Likewise, I spend thousands on a beast of a machine for my personal use. No way am I putting wear and tear on that for business reasons. It is my device. Go pound sand, get a device for me to use to get company work done, or go find a chump who will use their own like a damn fool. Of course I can afford top end and buy a really high spec machine, but thats for my use.
Wear and tear? What? What wear and tear are you thinking of? That's not how computers work.
Using anything causes wear a tear. To what degree is irrelevant. Simply being on and ready to use for work is wear and tear. The laptop trackpad and keyboard, wear and tear. Components have a lifespan and none of that lifespan should go to the employer on a device I own.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
but if its for work, its must be procured by work.
Just to earn less money? What's your goal in that statement? Why lower your value only for the sake of doing so?
Are their cases where it makes sense, sure. But are there cases where it makes little sense? Yes, many.
And I ask again... if you feel that way about computers, why not Internet access, power, or even the house you are in? Where do you draw the line and why?
It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It feels like you see your employer as the enemy and you want to hurt them. While that might be the case, instead of taking an antagonistic approach, look for an employer you like and who likes you. Your employment should be a positive thing for both parties, both working together, not against each other.
Let’s be real here. The argument you make is BS. If a business doesn’t have to buy a laptop, do you really think that money is going to your salary? Talk about head in the sand. That will go straight to investors or somewhere else. The decision isn’t ‘buy Scott a laptop or pay him 2k more’. You’ll never see that 2k.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Mario-Jakovina said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
I do not see that anyone needs to make "general rule" and select people based on what they prefer to use.
So you agree with my points. My point was people should HAVE it, not hiring based on which they preferred.
I agree with some of your points (i.e. definitely person who wants to work in IT should already have personal PC/laptop...)
But I think there is no need to "draw a line" and make general rule, whether the company will provide business laptop to someone or not, pay for internet...
(I was answering to your question "Where do you draw the line") -
@Mario-Jakovina said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
But I think there is no need to "draw a line" and make general rule, whether the company will provide business laptop to someone or not, pay for internet...
(I was answering to your question "Where do you draw the line")I see what you are saying. That can make sense. And I suppose that that is where we are at. We often provide nothing, but we can even provide housing. It's all over the map depending on the situation. But I think that that was my point that people were acting like the company had to provide certain things and the logic behind that would naturally include all those other things so what makes the logic include the one and not the others. Because their logic was not that it was situational, but that companies need to always do it because there should be a hard line, but where is that hard line.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
but if its for work, its must be procured by work.
Just to earn less money? What's your goal in that statement? Why lower your value only for the sake of doing so?
Are their cases where it makes sense, sure. But are there cases where it makes little sense? Yes, many.
And I ask again... if you feel that way about computers, why not Internet access, power, or even the house you are in? Where do you draw the line and why?
It feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It feels like you see your employer as the enemy and you want to hurt them. While that might be the case, instead of taking an antagonistic approach, look for an employer you like and who likes you. Your employment should be a positive thing for both parties, both working together, not against each other.
Let’s be real here. The argument you make is BS. If a business doesn’t have to buy a laptop, do you really think that money is going to your salary? Talk about head in the sand. That will go straight to investors or somewhere else. The decision isn’t ‘buy Scott a laptop or pay him 2k more’. You’ll never see that 2k.
That's not really how it works. Your compensation is a total package. If you think your benefits are ignored in your compensation package you aren't thinking like a business. They never ignore that. They know who has extra costs and who does not. It's very "the man" thinking to imagine anything you do will go back to investors, but that makes no logical sense in the case where you are demanding more or less compensation. It changes your leverage, bottom line. You might as well say that about anything you negotiate with and you'd hear how weird it sounds. There is a reason your salary goes up or down when you combine it with vacations, health benefits, etc.
My argument is based off of the real world. As someone whose been on both sides of the fence, I know that when I cost the company more, I earn less. Might not be right that second, but I'm less valuable and that affects my ability to get a raise or argue for additional compensation. If you think that companies ignore employee cost and just throw money away because they can't track how much an employee costs them, you are missing how business works.
If your business is that clueless, you can safely assume they won't have the ability to hire anyone for long.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Using anything causes wear a tear. To what degree is irrelevant. Simply being on and ready to use for work is wear and tear.
Actually lots of arguments say it's less than turning it on or off. This is a pointless argument. It's a nominal wear and tear that cannot be measured. It costs you nothing. If you argue with this, it means you are arguing for its own sake - out of a spite for your employer or a hatred of your job. This isn't about costing you anything, not a single penny, it's about making sure your employer doesn't get a benefit that costs you nothing just because you are adversarial. And that's exactly the kind of mindset any employer would want to weed out.
It's not "wrong" to feel that way, but it's a really, really strong indicator of someone you don't want in your working environment. An active animosity and desire to avoid good results for everyone. Willing to earn less, willing to work in a less good environment, just to hurt the employer. It's zero negative to you, it's just an active attempt to hurt the investors or if its a government job, the tax payers.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
The laptop trackpad and keyboard, wear and tear. Components have a lifespan and none of that lifespan should go to the employer on a device I own.
They all have lifespans greater than their usable lives. If you want to talk about BS arguments, this is the very definition.
You might as well argue that your employer needs to provide the windows that the sunlight is coming through because there is wear and tear from the sunlight.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
I have been WFH for a long time and feel passionately that if I’m doing work, the it’s on something work provided. The only time I would consider using my own hardware would be if the work hardware fails and I am waiting for the hardware to be fixed.
Sure, I get that. But your logic as to why... because it costs you nothing but they should never benefit from anything you have no matter how little that would cost you, is the issue.
And if work stuff fails and you'd use your own stuff temporarily... what's the change in logic there? I love the thought, but I don't understand why that would provide an exception to your "no way will they benefit from something I have" mentality. What makes it unacceptable normally, but acceptable then? Feels like a flaw in the logic. If the employer must supply everything no matter what, then it's no matter what. If it should be "what makes logical sense and benefits both parties most" then it would be the other. This feels like an untenable middle ground where the hard line doesn't make sense and the common good doesn't make sense.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
I am reacting to the video and discussions on this page. My example provides an example scenario which could happen. I own a deceive, it is my device, and I decide to give my device to somebody else. I no longer have it. Therefore, I have no device to work on. This is one reason why it is entirely expected by myself and many others that work must provide devices. You expect me to be able to work, then provide the tools to do so.
This is a fine example, but isn't really relevant in your "no wear and tear hard line" position. If the point is you want to buy and sell, change or share, that's a great position and I think a great discussion... does using your own machine lock you into always using your own machine? And the answer is... well it depends, I'm sure.
But if you are going to take the hard line of "I'll never allow the employer to benefit" then this really is pointless as the fact that you have or don't have the equipment doesn't matter because even if you have it and there's no reason not to use it for work, you won't do so.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
You expect me to be able to work, then provide the tools to do so.
So again I'll keep asking the same question... where do you draw this "hard line"? You are making the computer a hard line, but why not the INternet, the chair, the desk, the house? All of them are things you'd expect functional IT people to own regardless of anything else (work provided equipment or not.) When you start drawing hard lines (work must provide the equipment) then I have to ask... which equipment do you include and which do you not include because to me and others, there's no definition here. All of it is stuff you would be expected to already have, all things people normally use freely for work, all things that have nominal wear and tear added by using during work, all things you need if looking for your next job, but one of them, but only one, is singled out as "work HAS to provide it." Why that one, and what logic makes that one so adamant and the others ignored?
What I'm looking for is a consistency to the reason. If there is going to be a general rule (anything I use for work, work must provide) then that rule should apply. But it seems you have a hard and fast rule that almost never applies.
-
Keep in mind the ENTIRE concept of "work from home" is that instead of making you go into an office, sit in a company supplied space, use company supplied equipment, and you have to provide the commute, the ability to travel, your extra time to get there that you exchange the use of your house and electric and internet (and often computer or whatever) to gain huge amounts of benefits while your employer benefits from having to provide less. Everyone wins because you act as a team, working towards a common good and both sides should benefit.
If you don't feel that the employer should benefit from that, and are willing to give up those benefits to spite them, then the employer can achieve the same goals more cheaply in an office building in most cases. If I have to pay for electric, Internet, computers, heating, cooling, desks, chairs, etc. I can do that much more effectively where there is security, monitoring, shared spaces, etc.
Working from home is a really obvious benefit that employers can provide. Allowing the "costs you nothing" use of your home resources is a trivial exchange for getting all those benefits for yourself.
-
Here's two important takeaways I think people should have...
- If you represent an employer, you should never want to have employees that are adversarial with you. You want to be a good employer that encourages employees to like working there and seek the common good. Good employers should want to benefit employees, and employees should want the business to do well. It's mutually beneficial. If it isn't, rethink things. If you are doing things as an employer to negatively impact your employees beyond what is necessary (like making them work, lol) why? That's just shitty. If your employees hurt work just to hurt the business, why are you paying them? There's always someone who will appreciate the job. Be a team, or move on.
- As an employee, you shouldn't want to work in an environment where you don't desire the success of the whole. Employment is a huge portion of our lives and being happy with your work, with your career, are keys to being a happy person. If you feel hostility towards your job or your career, move on. There are other employers out there. If we were more aggressive about leaving bad ones, bad ones would be less common. One of the reasons that bad employers thrive is because people just put up with it. And the more good employees put up with bad employers, the fewer good employers are out there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Here's two important takeaways I think people should have...
- If you represent an employer, you should never want to have employees that are adversarial with you. You want to be a good employer that encourages employees to like working there and seek the common good. Good employers should want to benefit employees, and employees should want the business to do well. It's mutually beneficial. If it isn't, rethink things. If you are doing things as an employer to negatively impact your employees beyond what is necessary (like making them work, lol) why? That's just shitty. If your employees hurt work just to hurt the business, why are you paying them? There's always someone who will appreciate the job. Be a team, or move on.
- As an employee, you shouldn't want to work in an environment where you don't desire the success of the whole. Employment is a huge portion of our lives and being happy with your work, with your career, are keys to being a happy person. If you feel hostility towards your job or your career, move on. There are other employers out there. If we were more aggressive about leaving bad ones, bad ones would be less common. One of the reasons that bad employers thrive is because people just put up with it. And the more good employees put up with bad employers, the fewer good employers are out there.
While you make good points there is an obvious advantage for the company supplying IT and office equipment for the employee and that is taxation.
Most countries have sales tax and payroll tax so when an employee (not a company) buys something for his own money, that money has been heavily taxed already.
So in a win-win scenario for the maximum benefit of everyone, an employee should never buy anything for his own money that a company can buy.
