To wonder how we ever did 5 days a week in an office?

Yep!

No, I never likened myself to a miner, but I used to find it hard. I don’t mind admitting it.

I work in a factory. Back in the good old days if we had an issue that required input from HR/production planners/IT etc, we could go up to them and get it sorted and everything would be tickity boo. Now they all WFH 3/5 and it's a fucking nightmare trying to sort things. So whilst it's all very well the OP and others saying "WFH is great", it's not for those of us who have to suffer the consequences.

I think the labour market will automatically adjust and settle down eventually, as it always does after major change.

I suspect that in the long term, "WFH" jobs will be remunerated less simply due to the convenience factor and that jobs where you have to commute and work in a proper workplace will ultimately end up better paid. So, basically, say a WFH solicitor may end up being paid less than someone who has to spend time and money commuting to an office base. Basically, just a matter of compensating for the time and costs of travel and lack of convenience. Maybe not overtly, maybe not immediately, but ultimately, someone wanting to work from home may end up deciding to accept lower paid jobs that offer it, and conversely, employers who want their workers in their offices may find they have to offer a more attractive pay package to attract staff.

Basically, how the London Weighting evolved as people needed to be paid more, initially, to attract them to work in London due to the increased costs they face.

Obviously, that won't happen with jobs under national pay bargaining agreements, typically public sector, but certainly I can see it happening with businesses who aren't bound by national pay bargaining and where there's more flexibility. If the employer want people in the office, then ultimately, there's going to have to be recompense and differential as opposed to employers happy for employees to WFH.

Exactly.

@Startingagainandagain

I am really not sure why so many people seem bitter about it or want to desperately cling to old fashioned work practices.

I don’t think people are “bitter” (that adjective is always wheeled out when there’s a paucity of a decent argument). No one disagrees with the sentiment it’s the tactless and entitled tone that wound people up.

You did it in the same way people who currently work (hard) 5 days in an office do it now. It's not like you were going down the mines OP fgs.

Getting hold of people in government departments has always been painful. The public sector has always been full of untalented shirkers.

Why are you so sure your difficulties are due to people WFH and not a lack of staff?

If you can’t get hold of someone, it’s got nothing to do with WHERE people are working, and everything to do with HOW MANY people are working. I am public sector, and your method for contacting me is identical whether I’m in the office or WFH, but we are woefully short staffed.

That isn't. It's a poor and over-generalised argument because it completely ignores all the young people who are geographically excluded from the best job markets, whose issue is location rather than space. But it's not disablist.

Claims that it's bad for young people per se because it doesn't suit the ones you know are, though. Which has happened more than once in this thread. The fact is that remote working has benefitted many disabled and ND people, and some of those are young.

100% this is the reason. It has nothing to do with WFH and everything to do with massive understaffing.

I time my lunch break for afternoon pick up, it actually works better for my LA as I work within SEND children's services so it's incredibly rare for parents to contact us nor want us to call them then. We still have phone cover. I still have to have a lunch break at some point. Our staffing has decreased 34% whilst demand had risen 150% in the same period. We weren't exactly overflowing with staff in the first place

How exactly is saying that:

Young people cant afford to own their own house, and often have to house share with a lot of people.

This means that it wuld be difficult for them to work from home, as they would barely have any space to work from home,

....Being disablist?

Homeworking is a life saver for people like me who have long term health conditions/disabilities and the only reason why I am still in a job!

Yep!

This is why the posts about how it's bad for young people, teamwork etc need to be challenged. They're disablist, even the ones who mean well. They completely ignore the existence of people who are now able to be in these jobs purely because of remote working.

colleagues in my work have also been told to return. nhs. could be just our current manager throwing her weight around though

What’s the justification for this, and I assume you will challenge this?

No one has said " I can't work from home so you shouldn't either" to the op.

We are pointing out to her that not everyone has the option to work from home.

She just said merrily to everyone:

"change jobs if you want to work from home!".

That annoyed people. Because she is divorced from reality.

I currently work in an office. I was just looking at jobs in my industry.

Every job that i see is advertised as office based.

I don't see any fully remote roles.

You can't just choose to do work from home if you feel like it.

It's available in some jobs.

It's not available in a lot of jobs.

Some really disingenuous responses in this thread...

The OP never said that every jobs can be done from home.

The OP is talking about the many office roles that, as proven by the Covid lockdowns, can be done remotely without any issues.

I am really not sure why so many people seem bitter about it or want to desperately cling to old fashioned work practices.

I really don't understand the mentality of 'well, I can't work from home so you should not have that opportunity either'...it is just petty.

Homeworking is a life saver for people like me who have long term health conditions/disabilities and the only reason why I am still in a job!

My employer recruited me on the basis that I would only be in the office once a month at the most (commute is 4 hours for me in total) then tried to ask me to come in once a week and I reminded them of my disability and what was agreed when they hired me. I am now looking for something which is fully remote or more local. Our office is awful with no space, poor wi-fi, and too much noise. I never get anything done when I am there.

The point is many people like me know full well that some jobs can be done remotely and won't go back to horrendous commutes and noisy work environments just because dinosaur employers like people to be glued to their desks.

Homeworking helps people who are disabled/have long term health conditions, carers, single parents and some older people stay in employment. Employers always make a big song and dance about how they value equality and diversity, well this is one way to have and retain varied talents.

As with all the other similar examples people have given on this thread, do you really not get that the ones you're talking about here are a self selecting group of young people? By definition, they're the ones who want to work in an office environment and aren't excluded by it. You're not seeing a representative sample. You need to take some notice of the ones who aren't there too.

Young people aren't a monolith any more than any other age group. Some of them do very badly from the increase in remote work. Some of them were completely fucked over by office work as the norm and now have more opportunities because of the increase in remote working.

We've got to go back to office full time from September after WFH for last 4 years. I am dreading it.

"The "learning from being in" argument is used a lot but I don't believe it. My job is done in my head and confidential phone calls and conversations shouldn't be happening in front of other people unless they're invited."

Ah i think it depends on the job. Hearing two very senior people having a quiet chat about how to deal with a difficult client is the kind of thing that you learn from, but you'd never be invited to listen into on Teams.

Also it's easier to notice if juniors are stressed/overwhelmed if you can actually see them. A green light might tell you someone is online at 10pm but you won't have so much of a sense of if they've been hammering it all day and missed lunch, or are just logging back on in a relaxed way to do a bit of gentle admin.

And easier to judge your moment to pick someone's brain if you're around them, rather than Teams calling them when they're in the middle of concentrating on something.

I do agree though that a strict 5 days a week in office is ridiculous for most jobs these days. I think sometimes it's great to work from home if you need to get your head down and concentrate without being interrupted. But sometimes (not all the time !) it's worth being around to interrupt.

The op never said WFH was available to everyone

I'm sure she realises it isn't?

But I work alongside university STEM educated colleagues with professional qualifications, so we can all be trusted

^
Lol at this

I have an arts degree but manage not to be a total slacker at work

I just find it better health wise. Immunocompromised so not around people if I WFH, and fatigue is better managed when I don't have to get up as early
Office is noisy and I struggle to hear callers sometimes

Social wise I don't really speak to colleagues as you can't when you're on the phone all day!
Just as efficient as the job means you have to be at your desk so there is no vanishing off for anything

Have my desk in the living area which is open plan so no washing going on as you would hear it!

I mean I like my employers they are amazing people but I love it when they’re in the office not WFH. 😂 I’m a nanny.