New manager want me in the office. I wfh-help!

Wow, you really do have a bug up your ass. I can do my job and never show my face because that's what my contract says. I've never been to the office for my current job. Previous job, didn't go to the office for the last 5 years. My employer is perfectly happy with that.

Could you not manage once a month, you would probably need to stay over so maybe a hotel stay could be put on expenses

Depends on the person to be honest, I think it can be great, but I do have a bug up my ass about people who seem to think they're entitled to work from home. It does make a difference y'know when people actually show up and take part in face to face discussion with their colleagues.

I am a bit tired of this attitude from people where they seem to think they can do a job and just never show their faces - it's dystopian and weird in my opinion. I think working from home should stay, but I hate the attitude of "oh well I just work here, it doesn't mean i have to actually TALK to my colleagues socially" - I just wouldn't hire anyone with that attitude and find it really anti-social and really kind of rude.

Once a month can be classed as occasional though no?

I really do think that negotiation will resolve this issue. Most companies are reasonable and I don't see why that can't be the case here, but occasional visits still means occasionally OP does HAVE to go to the office.

People are a bit crazy on this thread today.

Why do people assume WFH is less productive? My partner says they get more done on their one day at home per fortnight as there is no talking/quiet to concentrate etc

Is the job spec saying the same as what the contract says?

You agreed a contract based in HQ so they are well within their rights however the fact the role was advertised as remote (unless clearly for Covid period not permanently) is something you could reasonably raise and see if you can agree a change but I would think there is no guarantee if they now want the contract honoured.

@roses321 if you read OP's latest message the job was advertised as remote with occasional office visits , there are further emails backing this up so I think OP is correct that despite offical address being HQ this was not their intention on her employment so it is a substantial change and also she has been working as agreed from job description and emails for more than 2 years in fact since she started job

DH had this a while ago, unfortunately the new manager didn't realise that the entire organisation changed most of the contracts to remote worker until DH and other team members threatened to resign.

If the position was advertised as remote then I think the manager is on dodgy ground.

You wouldn't have to take a pay cut if employers truly valued employees who work from home. It's not particularly healthy for people or the planet that the best paid jobs either mean living in a massive over-priced city, or doing a ridiculous commute (that you could only afford if you're C-suite anyway). It would do a lot for equity and a fairer society if people can work from anywhere and get paid appropriately for what they do and not where they live. Sorry, but it sounds like you do resent the OP for standing up for herself in this regard. There's nothing 'entitled' about being told you can WFH, and accepting a job on this basis, then suddenly told 'actually you have to come in now.' If anything, it's the employer being entitled.

Why is she being entitled? It's not as if she's being paid to sit at home doing nothing. Also, she's mentioned that she has a disability (not that that should be relevant).

Honestly, it's classic MN that workers are expected to doff their hats to their employers and put up with anything that's thrown at them otherwise they're 'entitled'.

based on your most recent update OP you will be fine to remain working as you are.

Same with my organisation, it's quite common when you're recruiting over a wide geographical range. In some cases now it's essentially the organisational business model. It means salaries can be lower than they otherwise might be as you're not limited to what's often a more expensive than average area, and it also means if you need really niche/scarce expertise you've more chance of getting it.

Actually I am also one of the people that is in the process of moving away but I happily took the pay cut to facilitate this. My cost of living will go down and my pay will reflect that, but to me my quality of life goes up

It is not gleeful to call out entitled attitudes (which is what this was) of “my circumstances have changed so work needs to accommodate it but I won’t accommodate any changes to my salary”

Yes, we've always claimed mileage (or tube ticket) to office. Plus parking if we don't get a space aa there's only a few and it's first come first served.

Ffs why did you take a job that was 5 hours away when the contract did not say WAH. I hate the WAH culture that is a hangover from covid. Looks like you will need to look for another job or negotiate your contract.

You are reading into things that I am not seeing.
OP sounds like someone who has been doing a job for 2 years and now has a new manager who wants to inconvenience her and cost her lots of money. There's no more entitlement than that. It's much more defensiveness.

I've always had my expenses paid for travelling to and from work.
I don't drive so reliant on trains, not allowed to drive medically

Wow! Is this a thing that happens? I've never heard of this in my industry. Or you must be very highly sought after!

The thing is, the law does allow for contract changes based on custom and practice in some circumstances, so it's not a good idea to let your view be coloured by your belief that people exercising their legal rights is entitled. OP has said there are potentially emails that contradict the contract, so it's likely she's going to need specific and technical advice. You're just not able to provide it here.

I think that's the opposite of what I was saying.

https://www.davidsonmorris.com/custom-and-practice/

Personally I think employers took the piss for too long on this one. Some of the claims about younger people needing to work in person are overblown, but presume we can all agree that it's beneficial for some younger people in some roles. For a long time, it was just assumed that this training was something more experienced employees should be providing, alongside their own work.

When I was a trainee, many of my older colleagues mostly made it quite clear they didn't want me working on their client files and were too busy to train me up. At the time, I thought they were being dicks. Subsequently, I get it. They were overworked, and they weren't given any accommodation in their other work for helping me learn. It was a small business who were trying to do stuff on the cheap and they were right to be resentful. My next move was to an organisation where the training was part of someone's actual job, and it was like night and day.

I get what you're saying. But in my experience, at my position, all I had was a grumpy, older Office Manager in one job who really liked to lay down the law and a grumpy, older legal sec who ended up bullying me! I mean I'm sure other colleagues did share their experience and in other work sectors yes, they probably did the same, but I don't see why this same experience can't be shared virtually?

I agree that she needs this, but her general attitude seems incredibly entitled. There are potential grandfather rights she can take advantage of here but I still honestly just roll my eyes with this whole "I've always had nothing to do with anything and been paid for sitting doing my own thing daily and now shock horror i'm being asked to take part and be part of the workforce how dare they" attitude.

Her job is most likely a flexible working contract not a remote working contract, if it's the latter then it would be stated, and she would also be entitled to have other remote working perks that come with roles like that such as desks/monitors/expenses for travelling to the office. If it's flexible working it's at the employers dicretion.

Oh that's good you follow Flexa!

To me - the companies already had leased offices on long leases even before Covid. There are only so many people in offices in cities around the world that can be used for e.g. housing (does that make sense? I mean to rent/buy offices turned into flats). Apparently, BoJo and his ilk were under pressure to get people to return to the office due to their investments. Then the threat to the owners of e.g. Pret etc. Another thing people don't like seeing but which has increased is the homeless crisis. Why couldn't there be more hostels built/converted from old offices?

What people don't seem to realise is the high street is dead/dying - the old House of Fraser in Victoria is closed down for one. A lot of the office blocks there are redeveloped and either housing or food/drink outlets.