Working From Home

Financial services in London, fulltime staff are in the office three days a week, days are allocated by management so the office isn’t full some days and empty others. As a part time worker who works three days a week I’m in the office for one day a week, every forth week I do two days. I have now been given permission to do two days every week, our daughter is now a noisy toddler, so being in the office works much better. The company my husband works for (also financial) have gone back to being in the office for all contractual hours.

Civil service or local government.

Everyone (children or not) has a legal right to submit a flexible working request and your employer must follow procedure and consider it (as long as you've been there a set amount of time which you have). I would do this, it means if approved it will be formalised, and if rejected they have to give reasons and you'll know where you stand.

It depends what other companies in your sector are doing it seems. The tide seems to be changing and as more companies enforce a few days at least in office others are doing the same as they see there are less chances for people to secure a job that offers more wfh (as was the threat previously). It seems the bubble has burst a bit.

For those also more in the office than at home, are you also London based?

@LucyOCS sorry forgot to say you should put in a formal flexible working request

I'm mid senior in HR and do 1 wfh a week. Most in my business are 4 or 5 days a week in the office. In fact all my friends and acquaintances (some HR and some not) have been doing 1 wfh day most weeks, occasionally 2 for some time now maybe once every 4-6 weeks if needed. I've recently been through a job search and all roles are work from the office absolute min 3 days, but a very strong read between the lines we don't like people that are 'only' in the office 3 days a week.

I would absolutely love to only go in twice a week. I don't know anyone in real life that had such incredible flexibility that I see spoken about on here! Please can someone point me in the direction of a job!

Put in a flexible working request to set out how much you go in. They should consider that based on it's circumstances rather than what everyone else does.

I wfh full time (go in on a "need" basis, normally once or twice a month). I am currently job searching and this is one of the main things that is making me exceptionally picky.

I keep seeing people saying wfh means they put in more hours? Why are people doing more hours than they are contracted to do?

Because many companies understaffed, struggling to recruit and without putting in more hours many organisations would crumble right now. If I am not spending an hour each way commuting, I don't mind starting a earlier or finishing a bit later to help keep on top of things. It might mean that another time I finish earlier or take a longer lunch break for an appointment. It's about give and take on both sides and having a trusted sensible relationship with your employer.

I keep seeing people saying wfh means they put in more hours? Why are people doing more hours than they are contracted to do?

LOADS of jobs involve an expectation that you 'get the work done'.
If you are in a NMW job, then you are only expected to work the hours you are paid for, but lots of "professions" expect you to complete projects (or however you work) rather than work '9am - 5pm with 30mins lunch'.

Then, people usually don't mind giving an extra 20 - 30 mins to finish something off, when they have 'saved' 2 hours a day travelling from doing the job the old fashioned way.
Quite often in my job, there are deadlines for getting something complete - I'm happy to work on into the evening one day when that is needed, and then I might start later another day, or go for a walk at lunchtime, or book a dentist / hair / Dr appt during the day (knowing I've got that 'credit' in the bank. Or when my dc were at school, go to their afternoon parents evening, or a concert or a presentation assembly.
Often though, I'll do a bit extra at home, because it actually means I do less hours overall, by finishing something up in one work period, rather than having to save everything / close it down / then crank it up and get all the other things I need to reference up, and then read through where I'd got to, etc on another day. I'm still finished for the day at an earlier time than I would be if I'd had to drive across the City in rush hour to get back from the office.

I keep seeing people saying wfh means they put in more hours? Why are people doing more hours than they are contracted to do?

Anyway. I go in about once a month now. They seemed to be aiming for 2 days a week a while ago because somehow employers seem to have magically decided this is the correct amount without explaining why. I think they've given up, for now. Most if us aren't interested in commuting that often. Some do. Those that like doing so.

I do agree that people making lifestyle decisions based on a temporary situation is madness though - especially all those people who moved further from their offices and then moaned or “couldn’t” come back in once lockdowns were over.

I had two days in the office before lockdown though and haven’t moved house.

We’re 3 days a week but it always feels like a day too many. 2 days a week would be perfect - enough to see colleagues/ have a face to face working relationship etc, but not so much that you feel your whole life is spent commuting.

This basically.

Also as an employer (although in a v different situation and sector) I would say employee’s perspectives on how productive it is to WFH are not the same as mine, not usually because they aren’t working but because they are thinking only of their role not the company as a whole.

I work in third sector and our whole team works 100% from home (other than monthly team meeting). It's amazing, makes it so much easier to recruit amazing staff as it opens the process up to candidates all over the UK. We are all very productive and trusted to get on with our jobs.

One thing I will say is that it gets a bit lonely and I do crave that office environment, but the positives stoll outweigh the positives as I can pick my son up from school and do bits and bobs around the house on my lunch break.

I'm senior in a PE house in London. We don't have a WFH policy. It's frowned upon not to be in the office at least 4 days a week. We are travelling more so it's good to be in the office the days you are in the country.

I agree. I wouldn't even consider a job working from the office 4-5x a week.

The younger generation are demanding flexibility in office-based roles because technology has allowed us to.

It suits us. We are all happy with it, noone complains that they are in the office. We are in a different building from the majority of employees, and I believe many of them do hybrid working, but it suits us to work in the office.

Our full timers have to be in 2 days a week. I work 3 days a week, as do 2 of my team and our manager doesn’t care so long as we come in occasionally. That doesn’t seem to be changing- the company is trying to expand, so is still offering fully remote roles.

Extremely similar role to you albeit different industry, and I'm excellent in terms of productivity WFH. Also being asked to go in 3 days pw, in honesty 2 days pw is my optimum. I think the only option is to change companies for a more flexible or full remote role, as I acknowledge my employer can ask what it wants.

For those who think it's not monitored... If you use a swipe card to access your office, they will know how many days you're in.

Where I work (3rd sector) they've asked people to spend 20% of their time in the office. I don't think it's enforced though.

I do 17 hours pw over 3 days, so 20% of that would be less than a day. And because we now do a lot of work over the phone, and there's a shortage of meeting rooms, we couldn't do a lot of it in the office anyway. One out of the 6 in the team works entirely in community settings, another is nominally based in an office on the other side of the county, one works one day of their 4 day week in a mental health resource centre and the other is mostly seeing clients in their homes. It really wouldn't work for most of us.

And the upside of the way we started to work during the pandemic was that we can take on loads more, because we aren't driving all over 2 counties seeing clients F2F. Two of us have caseloads treble the size we had before. I can't see them forcing us into the office.

Think our bosses were surprised how well the business ran over lockdown and that convinced them to make a (massive) saving by downsizing on office space.

I don’t think it’s just about productivity now, it’s also about retaining staff…. it’s surprising how quickly employees have come to expect hybrid arrangements as normal so if they’re not offered people will look elsewhere. It does suck for those in sectors where wfh isn’t possible though.

They’ve asked us to be in the office 2 days p/w at my place (Finance, London) but it’s not strictly enforced. Also they’ve downsized the office space but haven’t quite found the right balance yet - there’s a bun fight for desks on Tuesdays and Thursdays but place is a ghost-town on Mondays and Fridays.

Surely the issue is about productivity and business demands. Everyone says that they are more productive at home but there are so many business building interactions that happen in many workplaces that cannot be replicated at home.

There was a great thing on the radio the other day when they were chatting with a business chap who has got his staff back in for the majority of time because it is overall better for his customers. It seems the need of the customer has largely been forgotten in the WFH debate.

There's so many members of the workforce who can never wfh. How do people think they survive?

Following that argument, there are many people who have to work nights. There are many people that have to work outside. There are many people who have to work away from home.

But for those of us that don't need to why should we be made to because, before we had the technology it was the only way to do things historically ?