If employers were mandated to allow employees to WFH unless there was a clear reason to need someone physically in a workplace

you see the issue?
A legal right to flexible working could put women especially at a disadvantage.

Why especially women? At my last place of work, there was one man who got his contract changed so he could do the afternoon school run - he worked split days, so essentially had a later, longer lunch break. Other men went PT so they could share childcare better with their wives. In Sweden, parents together get more time off if the man does his fair share of parental leave.

If women suffer more, it's because we let them, and we don't expect fathers to pull their weight as parents. Women have to do pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding, but otherwise, there's no part of parenting men can't do.

Where they are possible, more flexible ways of working should improve life for everyone.

Train and bus prices would rise, and the services would reduce.

I'm not sure about the diet either. Surely at home you snack more.

Also, working and living in the same place can have a major toll on mental health.

I will say that offices should advocate for a work/life balance.

My husband works partly from home and partly from the office (it has to be a minimum of 2 days a week), this seems to be a good balance. He really struggled WFH all the time during and post Covid, having a variety of people to talk to has massively helped him (and he doesn’t even like people very much).

Flexible working is not a right the government proposes, just that anyone can ask and is entitled to a decision.

I agree it does not mean wfh necessarily, it could just be a different start and finish time.

Except the OP's whole point is that everyone should WFH and those that didn't like it she would work on to change their minds.

Dream on lazy bones

@EBearhug you see the issue?
A legal right to flexible working could put women especially at a disadvantage.

If companies are able to accommodate a late start to suit working parents and kids drop off then fantastic. But it needs to be done willingly not forced with the arm of the law.

Forcing it could lead to resentment and forcing it once bitten, twice shy could mean employers avoid employing people who are potentially going to ask for flexible working.

I don’t think anyone here is saying it must be either fully from home or fully from the office - but that a hybrid works

people took the goodwill given over Covid and expect it to be the same now but there should be certain rules around wfh that should be respected - such as not doing childcare at the same time.

and yes it worked to companies advantage to have people wfh during covid but that goes both ways - if wfh couldn’t have happened we would be in terrible economic straits right now.

rigidity on either side is not helpful

This. I massively struggle with overeating at home. And while logistics are simple wfh, I suspect it has a negative impact on far more people's mental health than actually realise it to be a factor.

Of course it depends- some jobs simply can't be done from home, or at least, there has to be some physical presence from a team, be it on a rota or whatever - which is why requests need to work for the business. I couldn't have done my lifeguarding summer job from home back when I did that. Plenty of jobs need a physical presence, and plenty of jobs need to work to a particular timetable - which is why most jobs with flexible hours have core time.

But I do also think some managers are very much about presenteeism and will not consider other ways of working, when actually, it could work well for both the business and staff, whether it's about early or late starts, compressed hours, split days, whatever else. There isn't one size fits all even for "everyone in the office every day."

Whenever there's a WFH thread, those who oppose it seem completely incapable of accepting that a blanket approach isn't necessary and start pushing out strange arguments like, "why should a data analyst work from home when a firefighter can't do the same."

I've also noticed a clear divide in the attitudes between the two camps.

Supporters of WFH generally accept that it's not for everyone and are happy for others to adopt working patterns that suit their needs. Opponents seem determined to stop it for everyone, everywhere, forever and force everyone back to the office no matter what.

I think this reveals a lot about the type of people who champion full-time office work. Personally, I wouldn't want to work with or be managed by that type of person.

@EBearhug
It very much depends on the nature of the business or the service they are providing

Can you imagine how it would work if loads of teachers were to say - I want to flex my legal right and have flexible working. I want to start at 9.30 - who's dealing with their class between 9.00 and 9.30?

So the next time the HT is interviewing, 35 yo woman vs 55 yo woman, who gives her less risk?

If a business needs to be open at 8am to suit the clients, there is little point employing staff who are likely to say - Sorry I can't start until 9.20, you know after the school run -

It depends on many factors, of course, not least the size of business/number of staff. At my last company, they encouraged different start times, because it reduced queuing at the security gates and thus helped improve their environment targets. Certainly lots of us preferred not to travel at rush hour if avoidable- in my case, it made a journey time difference of 25 minutes vs an hour. But it is an international business with early calls to AsiaPac and late calls to the USA, and different start times meant as a team, we could cover both ends of that. Obviously that won't be a consideration for all businesses, but allowing more flexibility around start times could let them open later for customers, if there are enough staff to cover both ends of a longer day. Allowing more flexibility can help the business too sometimes. It's why flexible working requests have to work for the business to be agreed, not just the staff.

*She's making excuses and she'll have to adapt.

And she will have to find her own social stuff.*

I disagree.
Working alongside colleagues is massively beneficial for the vast majority of new employees, especially young ones. Senior employees should be accessible and visible, and work as role models for such staff.

And the social side of professions can be equally important, especially for young employees moving into new areas.

I know dh's firm provides new employees and trainees with ample social events, for those who want it. As well as promoting young professional groups in the area. This is in addition to providing guidance, work shadowing, being available for a quick question, etc, Being a visible, accessible role model for new staff, especially young ones, is see, as an important skill set and is encouraged by partners.

Whilst they have some flexible working conditions, most of the employees chose to return to the workplace full time, and none choosing to work from home permanently.

Agree that WFH can harm women's careers, bake in inequality as it gives men even more excuses to offload domestic and childcare burden to wives and mothers. If take-up of flexible working was more equal between the sexes it would be better.

It's not MEAN to put the needs of the business first. That's exactly what HR are employed to do.

The business is there to make money and serve clients, providing employment is secondary to the above.

If a business needs to be open at 8am to suit the clients, there is little point employing staff who are likely to say - Sorry I can't start until 9.20, you know after the school run -
There will be a load of questions the interviewer can't ask at the interview due to risk of being accused of discrimination so they are likely to avoid parents with kids.

@OptimismvsRealism that is not what she is saying. It is a reality for most jobs being there in person and being seen is good for your career. The challenge is women are still often primary carer so increased WFH may increase pressure kn women to do this sort of work to fit in childcare, meaning they are less visible in the workplace.

I have a colleague who WFH a lot due to health conditions. He is scupulous about ensuring he comes in once a week if possible and attends all in person meetins and events in order to be visible.

You could say it isn't fair, but humans gonna human, they tend to prioitise and remember people they see and interact with in person.

Seriously, if you agree to work for a particular employer they can stipulate your working arrangements, providing it’s all legal and above board, of course. As an employee it’s your prerogative to not work there if you don’t like the rules. Why is it that some people think that an employer is there for their convenience - they are paying you to work for them how they see fit.

And there would be a big increase in MUSK problems because the majority of people don’t have an appropriate set up for home working.

@ElaineMBenes indeed. Flexible working can mean all sorts of things - home working, compressed hours, part time hours, later starts. It is about a conversation on what works for the individual - within the bounds of the needs of the business.

I haven't read the entire thread but for me there's a risk of creating a divide between younger and older workers, and well off and less well off workers. Young people/less well off people are less likely to have a comfortable, spacious home from which to work. Commuting is stressful but so is trying to cram in a desk beside your bed in a shared house with noisy housemates.

Younger workers learn from older workers by being alongside them in the office. All that tacit knowledge, informal communication, informal networking and relationship building helps careers. Working is not just about completing your tasks, it's about helping the company succeed in the long term.

Hahaha guess you've not seen the king's speech then. Right to flexible working - get in!

Flexible working doesn't automatically mean WFH. I have a very flexible job which is hybrid and is hybrid for a reason.

I WFH, I don't juggle childcare as I don't have young children. I work just as efficiently at home as I do in the office. I agree that people shouldn't be trying to care for children while working but plenty of us don't.

I think the simple answer is, those who worked from home during COVID got into a very cushy routine and want that to continue. There are many of those WFH not using childcare anymore so, in my opinion, are definitely not working as productively as they would be in an office as they’re juggling working/childcare. Just get back to normal like it was before COVUD and stop whinging about having to “go” to work.