What's new

Let's All Laugh At... let's all laugh at United

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
20,144
337,058
They're not returning to "work" though are they? They're returning to the office. If they can do the job just as good remotely as they can in the office, then they should be allowed to do so. Some people work from home due to personal circumstances as well so forcing them to return or they lose their job is pretty crappy no matter how much the redundancy package may be.

Companies should be more flexible post COVID. Have them come in one or two days at week if you need to.
I think if they were employed during or post Covid and it wasn't explained that they would eventually have to go in once things settled down you have a fair point. If however they were employed on the basis that they would be going into the office every day then I think the employer has every right to tell them they need to return now that it's very safe to do so.
 

easley91

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
19,536
56,047
I think if they were employed during or post Covid and it wasn't explained that they would eventually have to go in once things settled down you have a fair point. If however they were employed on the basis that they would be going into the office every day then I think the employer has every right to tell them they need to return now that it's very safe to do so.
Of course it depends on the company and how they are/were operating, but as they have been working from home up until now, I would have thought at least a flexible option would be offered and not a straight up you MUST return on a full time basis?

Also this is a new person coming in and stamping his mark and not a change given by the previous management. It tells me he hasn't given any consideration to his employees and their circumstances as to why they may have been remote up until now.

I don't know if United did this but during the pandemic several companies hired remote workers that lived miles away from where the company is based (I was one of them). In their case they should be given the option to continue working remotely if the job is doable.

Not everyone can return to the office on a full time basis due to various reasons so to demand everyone does so is a bit much (in my opinion).
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
17,519
32,431
It’s funny when employers bang on about their employees being the most important thing but then don’t give a single shit about their employees family and financial circumstances especially during a cost of living crisis.
 

thebenjamin

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2008
12,555
40,100
It’s funny when employers bang on about their employees being the most important thing but then don’t give a single shit about their employees family and financial circumstances especially during a cost of living crisis.

I very much doubt anyone thinks Jim Ratcliffe cares about anything other than how rich he is
 

Riandor

COB Founder
May 26, 2004
9,438
11,694
I think if they were employed during or post Covid and it wasn't explained that they would eventually have to go in once things settled down you have a fair point. If however they were employed on the basis that they would be going into the office every day then I think the employer has every right to tell them they need to return now that it's very safe to do so.
But this in return has the opportunity for inequality.
Case in point, my company in Germany decided they woulld "prefer" it if people returned to the office. Of course, why not. Some Directors wanted it enforced, others argued succesfully that certain positions had been filled during Covid that were based upon skill, not location., as a result of everyone working from home anyway.

Thus in order to provide a degree, but certainly not perfect, balance, departments determined whether they would "encourage" employees to be in the office more regularly or were less bothered. IT (certainly SAP) for example, work mostly from home, other than the pc & networking department who need more onsite presence. Sales and Production are decidely more "in office".

THe point though was that ideally the top brass wanted a standard all employees back asap, but soon realised that there own company had diversified to a point where a one rule fits all wasn't suitable. In the It department alone, we would have lost 25% of staff because they were not employed near to office locations and giving them the benefit vs the rest of the department, went against workers rights (a bigger thing in Germany than in the UK). Whilst a legal case could have been made based upon contracts, the cost and morale hiwas deemed not worth it.

Now, not all companies want to or can operate in this manner, but given how life work balance has changed due to covid, and the fact that covid enforced the roll out of work from home technologies and opportunities, to roll that back wholesale is in my opinion a backwards strategy.

As a result of being more at home, I am there for my kids when they come home from school, OR my wife is. There is no longer a traditional Mother role in the house, it is whoever has WFH that day or week. We have a better home relationship balance and obviously save soem money in certain areas (fuel), lose in others... COFFEE!! :cautious:

Yeah, some days I get a little less done, other days I do more than I ever got done in an office where I was constantly being torn in a multitude of directions and meaningless meetings where you sat there and could add or do nothing.

It's not a one glove fits all solution, but that is relevant in both directions. From the outside, and I appreciate I do not pretend to understand how a football company's business needs to be run, but this in my opinion looks like an archaic approach and one I am grateful I am not part of.
 

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
20,144
337,058
But this in return has the opportunity for inequality.
Case in point, my company in Germany decided they woulld "prefer" it if people returned to the office. Of course, why not. Some Directors wanted it enforced, others argued succesfully that certain positions had been filled during Covid that were based upon skill, not location., as a result of everyone working from home anyway.

Thus in order to provide a degree, but certainly not perfect, balance, departments determined whether they would "encourage" employees to be in the office more regularly or were less bothered. IT (certainly SAP) for example, work mostly from home, other than the pc & networking department who need more onsite presence. Sales and Production are decidely more "in office".

THe point though was that ideally the top brass wanted a standard all employees back asap, but soon realised that there own company had diversified to a point where a one rule fits all wasn't suitable. In the It department alone, we would have lost 25% of staff because they were not employed near to office locations and giving them the benefit vs the rest of the department, went against workers rights (a bigger thing in Germany than in the UK). Whilst a legal case could have been made based upon contracts, the cost and morale hiwas deemed not worth it.

Now, not all companies want to or can operate in this manner, but given how life work balance has changed due to covid, and the fact that covid enforced the roll out of work from home technologies and opportunities, to roll that back wholesale is in my opinion a backwards strategy.

As a result of being more at home, I am there for my kids when they come home from school, OR my wife is. There is no longer a traditional Mother role in the house, it is whoever has WFH that day or week. We have a better home relationship balance and obviously save soem money in certain areas (fuel), lose in others... COFFEE!! :cautious:

Yeah, some days I get a little less done, other days I do more than I ever got done in an office where I was constantly being torn in a multitude of directions and meaningless meetings where you sat there and could add or do nothing.

It's not a one glove fits all solution, but that is relevant in both directions. From the outside, and I appreciate I do not pretend to understand how a football company's business needs to be run, but this in my opinion looks like an archaic approach and one I am grateful I am not part of.
Yeah and that's why I said if they were employed during Lockdown it needed to be made clear to them they'd need to be back in the office once things were safe to do so.
 

chaching

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
627
1,493
Yeah and that's why I said if they were employed during Lockdown it needed to be made clear to them they'd need to be back in the office once things were safe to do so.
What about those whose circumstances have drastically changed since Covid started. If my company stated we all had to be back in the office full time I would have to decline.

I am lucky my company and managers understand my situation and they know I am a valuable member of the team. Do they make a special case for me but others doing similar jobs still have to come in, do they make me take redundancy and lose all my experience and knowledge or do they admit everyone doing a similar job to me can do their job effectively from home so carry on as is?

Only one of those options make sense to me but if someone comes in with this old fashioned Dogma both the company and myself will lose out.
 

IfiHadTheWings

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2013
3,934
12,548
Bloody work from home skivers leaving us office staff to do all the work (talking bollocks on SC mostly)

bring back hanging to go with national service for the littleuns.

chimney sweeping n all.
 

allatsea

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
9,105
16,476
Of course it depends on the company and how they are/were operating, but as they have been working from home up until now, I would have thought at least a flexible option would be offered and not a straight up you MUST return on a full time basis?

Also this is a new person coming in and stamping his mark and not a change given by the previous management. It tells me he hasn't given any consideration to his employees and their circumstances as to why they may have been remote up until now.

I don't know if United did this but during the pandemic several companies hired remote workers that lived miles away from where the company is based (I was one of them). In their case they should be given the option to continue working remotely if the job is doable.

Not everyone can return to the office on a full time basis due to various reasons so to demand everyone does so is a bit much (in my opinion).
Sorry but I do not agree except for those employed as new people during Covid. If you were employed prior to Covid and your work required you to be in the "office" to do your work then you have no argument IMO. If you were employed during Covid and as part of your contract of employment you could work at home I see no problem with you continuing to work from home.
 

chaching

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
627
1,493
Sorry but I do not agree except for those employed as new people during Covid. If you were employed prior to Covid and your work required you to be in the "office" to do your work then you have no argument IMO. If you were employed during Covid and as part of your contract of employment you could work at home I see no problem with you continuing to work from home.
I am glad I don't work for you.

My company did employ a couple of people from further afield who do a similar job to what I do. My circumstances changed which would make it very very difficult for me to go into the office full time. So in your world, they are admitting that my job can be done working from home and will allow certain people to continue, but they are then to force me to go back into the office full time, what good does that do anyone?

It has been shown companies that try and get people back in to the office they are struggling to retain decent people in the area that I work in as flexible working is seen as a valuable benefit.

Some roles you do need to be in the office but making it a blanket everyone that used to, has to go back into the office doesn't really work anymore.
 

easley91

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2011
19,536
56,047
Sorry but I do not agree except for those employed as new people during Covid. If you were employed prior to Covid and your work required you to be in the "office" to do your work then you have no argument IMO. If you were employed during Covid and as part of your contract of employment you could work at home I see no problem with you continuing to work from home.
I think you have completely missed the point of what I am saying. The pandemic and lockdowns showed companies what jobs were still doable remotely. If your equipment is in the "office", then yes work in the office. If you have a laptop, an internet connection and a phone, generally you can do your job remotely.

My point is that those whose jobs can be done remotely as well as it can be done in the office (or even better in some cases because you have nobody constantly badgering you) should be given the option to do so. Working remotely also saves on childcare and commute costs. And there are people who have health issues that benefit from working from home. No consideration for any of that. Many circumstances may have changed since COVID. My life prior to 2020 is certainly not the same as it is today.

A man coming into a new organization and going "you must come and work in the office full time or quit" is an asshole that I would never want to work for. I don't want him screaming for mental health and saying he cares about his employees, because this is just a shitty excuse to let people go as a money saving measure.
 

funkycoldmedina

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2004
2,091
6,895
I think if they were employed during or post Covid and it wasn't explained that they would eventually have to go in once things settled down you have a fair point. If however they were employed on the basis that they would be going into the office every day then I think the employer has every right to tell them they need to return now that it's very safe to do so.
This comes down to being progressive employers though doesn't it. Those companies that offer that flexibility tend to attract the better quality of employees because the best demand the flexibility. It very much feels like a generational split but I think a balance is key now. It's hard to build a culture when everyone is remote but demanding 5 days when people can work flexibly seems archaic.
 

tommyt

SC Supporter
Jul 22, 2005
6,207
11,136
Doesn't take much...

bestie-jensen-ackles.gif
 

Riandor

COB Founder
May 26, 2004
9,438
11,694
We can’t even employ pure office workers as easily anymore because the current generation demand more working/location flexibility.

In certain industries you will limit your pool if you stick to the old requirement of 100% office.
But anyway, this thread is about Man United right?

So here’s hoping all the staff quit!!
 

Coolpudge

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2006
1,149
863
Yeah I think we won about eight trophies in the 25 years before ENIC and have won one single trophy since. Football has changed a lot and in many ways ENIC have done a great job at Spurs compared to other similar sized clubs like Everton or Villa. But even Levy would probably admit that one trophy in nearly twenty five years is pretty shocking for a club that which is one of the biggest, most well followed, well located clubs in Europe.
It is but like you football has changed a lot in that time. If you compare us to the similarly sized clubs you mention other then the playoffs they have won anything in that time either.
 

Coolpudge

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2006
1,149
863
So, because Ineos own more than 1 club in the same competition, United would have to drop down to the Europa Conference League if they can't "find a solution" but would that mean they'd swap places with Chelsea?

I would guess that yes they swap with Chelsea but I’m sure there will be something that Ineos or Ratcliffe can do that means they won’t go into the conference league. I’m sure Man City and Girona will have to do something similar.

Didn’t the same thing happen a few years ago like RB Leipzig and Salzburg. There will be some loophole that gets them out of it.
 

Styopa

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2014
5,669
15,785
It is but like you football has changed a lot in that time. If you compare us to the similarly sized clubs you mention other than the playoffs they have won anything in that time either.

Agree, but I suppose the point I was making is we put ourselves in the position to win something over the last fifteen years but for some reason we fell short. Whereas no one really expected Villa or Everton to win trophies during the last fifteen years.

Ultimately, if we want to mix it with the big boys then it’s big boys we we should be compared to, not clubs who are relegated or scrapping at the bottom of the league.

We’re not the new kids on the block anymore, we have had plenty of opportunities.
 

Coolpudge

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2006
1,149
863
Agree, but I suppose the point I was making is we put ourselves in the position to win something over the last fifteen years but for some reason we fell short. Whereas no one really expected Villa or Everton to win trophies during the last fifteen years.

Ultimately, if we want to mix it with the big boys then it’s big boys we we should be compared to, not clubs who are relegated or scrapping at the bottom of the league.

We’re not the new kids on the block anymore, we have had plenty of opportunities.
That’s true. I think the issue is that in English football there are 3 domestic trophies plus whichever European competition you’re in to win. At the start of next season I’d say there is maybe 8 or 9 teams that will think they should be winning something. It’s getting tougher and tougher every year to win something. That’s why I was upset when Poch seemed to prioritise coming top 4 over winning the Europa league in the past and Conte didn’t seem to care about the conference league. Realistically we aren’t going to be favourites to win the FA cup and since Pep has come in and taken the Carabao cup seriously we aren’t going to be favourites for that either.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,876
105,454
Of course it depends on the company and how they are/were operating, but as they have been working from home up until now, I would have thought at least a flexible option would be offered and not a straight up you MUST return on a full time basis?

Also this is a new person coming in and stamping his mark and not a change given by the previous management. It tells me he hasn't given any consideration to his employees and their circumstances as to why they may have been remote up until now.

I don't know if United did this but during the pandemic several companies hired remote workers that lived miles away from where the company is based (I was one of them). In their case they should be given the option to continue working remotely if the job is doable.

Not everyone can return to the office on a full time basis due to various reasons so to demand everyone does so is a bit much (in my opinion).

It reminds me of the scene in the qpr four year plan documentary where Ecclestone goes into the dressing room, sees all the bottled water and sports drinks and says get rid of them, they can drink normal water. Billionaires penny pinching in areas of a sport they know little about and only trying to make dick swinging statements to lay down a marker.
 
Top