Working From Home

You were working before there was electricity and phones? 🤔

In my experience those who like wfh don't have performance issues, but like concentration.
Quite the opposite, those who like in the office.....like decision by committee, less individual accountability to 'learn from others' etc

Unfortunately at my work the ones resisting coming back to the office are all the people we have performance concerns about. Those who work hard with decent output have all quite happily come back in a couple of days a week.

And for most jobs it's much more effective to work in the office unless you have a job where you work in a complete silo

Again, presumably you are thinking about the particular job you do ?

There are plenty of jobs where people work independently, on their own caseloads, or own projects etc. and don't need to 'chat' about things. When we need to collaborate, we set up a Teams meeting. When one of us has a query or wants a bit of advice, or someone to take a second look at something, we e-mail, phone or video call them. It's not difficult.

Ultimately, as has already been said on this thread, wfh suits some jobs. It suits some people, it doesn't suit others. There is no 'one size fits all'.

And those WFH got paid chicken shit for wages. Are you advocating for that?

eh? Where do you get that from ?
We seem to be back to people taking one job, or one example and assuming that applies to all jobs.
I wfh long before covid, and am / always have been paid the same as those who chose to drive to the office.

I agree. And for most jobs it's much more effective to work in the office unless you have a job where you work in a complete silo

Everyone managed to do their jobs before electricity
Everyone managed to do their jobs before telephones
Everyone managed to do their jobs before computers
Everyone managed to do their jobs before the internet

Well, yeah, but they normally did it outside their home. And those WFH got paid chicken shit for wages. Are you advocating for that?

@UsingChangeofName yes and offices are evolving again and need people back in 2 to 3 days a week.

Can you do a short day in the office and pick up the rest of the work in the evening? That's what I've always done.

Everyone managed before. If covid hadn't happened we would not even be having this conversation.

Why can't people just get on with it.

Everyone managed to do their jobs before electricity
Everyone managed to do their jobs before telephones
Everyone managed to do their jobs before computers
Everyone managed to do their jobs before the internet

What a daft argument.
Workplaces evolve. If there is a new way to do things, then the pros and cons of embracing that should be looked into and considered rationally. Where there are benefit to the workforce, to the employers, and to the environment generally, why on earth wouldn't you embrace change ?

Oh, and some of us wfh long before covid, as, in some roles and for some employers and some employees it works very well.

my manager is insisting on attendance in the office at least once a week. I feel the whole mandating attendance is taking a backward step. Wfh allows people from all of the country to work for an organisation. It also gives consideration to peoples circumstances like carers, those with children or say military families.

Legally anyone can ask for flexible working and an employer has to be seen to be fair to all.

Everyone managed before. If covid hadn't happened we would not even be having this conversation.

Why can't people just get on with it.

Everyone is so fragile now.

Employees want to do what works best for them. Employers want employees to do what works best for the company. The two aren’t necessarily compatible. I listened to a radio 4 programme a couple of weeks ago and it seems to be thought that wfh is not as productive as it was thought to be. Obviously, the people that like it, do so partly because it gives them the flexibility to do household chores or the school run. I imagine it will take much longer term studies to determine whether office, hybrid or wfh is the most productive.

If I were an employer, providing a company car for an employee to use to commute, I wouldn’t be very happy about that perk not being used for commuting primarily.

I was thinking more that younger, inexperienced ataff are not coping well with navigating the flexibility of hybrid working.

For example WFh requires more, not less, communication and a bit of managing up.

I don't disagree with this, but I think it then depends on your role. If you are training younger staff, you need to be in the office more. If your job doesn't involve that, you don't.

Yes we were thinking this was how they knew what was going on in DH's office.

Or they know where you've logged in - ie on the office system or via the VPN from outside.

However neither take into account working at client offices/attending meetings elsewhere etc.

Indeed. I appreciate the flexibilty of hybrid working bit I have a nagging feeling we are letting young people down. It takes a lot of experience and maturity to be able to manage your workload and meet deadlines at home.

Agreed, some of the most important aspects of job roles are picked up by learning from those around you. Hearing how more experienced colleagues speak to colleagues, clients and manage difficult situations, being able to just turn around and quickly check something with a colleague rather than via Teams is really important. Employers can also see and hear if someone is perhaps not happy or struggling with their work and provide support rather than them muddling through at home.

3 days seems to be the standard tbh.

On the counter side I have notice a lot of flexibilty around being in the office is bad for younger staff.

I have found they can struggle to adopt workplace behavioural norms, communicate poorly and struggle with managing their time and workload effectively. If things make them incomfotable they often choose to WFH or switch off their cameras in meetings.

Often they like WFH but as they are inexperienced they don't see some of the problems it is creating with their performance and resilience.

The company I work for are extremely flexible. They usually leave it up to line managers to decide. My line manager lives in another country so he isn’t bothered either way and I just tell my team if/when I am going in and they join too if they can… unless I need them in for a meeting which is rare as we do most stuff over teams.

I try to get in one day a week but I can go weeks without going in.

@Waitingalwayswailing

Or non-profit sector. Most of them are taking the opportunity to work more flexibly and rent smaller office space. Its a waste of charity funds to spend money on an office big enough to hold all staff 5 days a week, when flexible hybrid working is a better model and will save money.

Hello OP, I'm in a similar boat to you in terms of small child and length of commute. My non-profit workplace has not specified a number of days per week in the office, but they have specified particular events/meetings they expect to be had in person. Generally I'm in once a week, occasionally twice and on a bad week 3x. My partner has been expected to go in 2x per week and is currently job hunting and we've both agreed we wouldn't want him to be in more than 2x as it would put too much pressure on the other person with nursery runs.

My sibling also works for a global financial services firm, with a similar commute time to you, and the mandate internationally is 3 days per week which she's not that happy about. She gets away with 2 days maybe once a month, but thinks her boss would comment if she was doing it more frequently.

Right now, I love my days in the office. I love getting on the train and having zero demands on me and enjoying my coffee and book. I like the office environment and get re-energised from seeing my colleagues and being in London. But it's all about balance and if I were having to do it more than 2 days a week it would become counter-productive.