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

I was going to say the same about school leavers and grad trainees. Not to mention the parents trying to cut their childcare costs and failing to put proper childcare in place for babies, toddles and wrap around care.

It’s not the offshoring that’s the risk. It’s the near shoring to places like Spain or Portugal. It’s already happening

i would much rather wfh but there are benefits being in the office in terms of picking things up from others, training people, building relationships

@Radiatorvalves exactly- young people is a prime reason.

During the early days of covid. My boss asked me to check up on one of graduates, She was working from the top of her bed. Mum, Dad and Sister were ALL trying to work from the house.
Really that cannot be healthy for young people.

If you want to work from home then find a contractually remote role.

This

Its not up to you to tell employers how to run their businesses

In the long run, that sort of thing ought to work out due to market forces; if it's harder to get people to work on site, employers will have to pay more.

I wonder whether any employers have started offering an extra component in pay for those working in the office.

Some people do actively prefer to be in the office, perhaps either because they live alone and want some contact with people, or because they don't have any quiet space to work in at home. I realise that doesn't apply to most of the mumsnet demographic! When some people began to return to offices, only one of DH's colleagues (who lived alone) returned regularly, and DH used to go in sometimes just because he knew that he appreciated having some company.

I think mental health issues would rise even higher if this was put in place.

Why do humans always work against their own interests?

Not everyone is working against their own interests - there are many people for whom WFH does not work for them at all for financial, social, health and other related reasons. But yet again we have another thread where the OP assumes their reality is everyone’s reality

Just like there are people where it does work well

Its the people who don’t have the choice that it’s not great for

Yes technology is well known for standing still and not evolving and companies rarely take advantage of opportunities to reduce their costs.

IT system can't be accessed out side the office - security reasons - that's as much an excuse as they'd need.

No need to faff with meetings or whatever- security

I don't see why it would need to be mandated.

If jobs can be done equally well at home as they are done in the office, then it is in employers' interests to have as many people work from home as possible. They save vast amounts on rent, utilities, insurance, security etc. And they have the added bonus of being able to offshore certain roles to overseas locations where labour is much cheaper.

If they're choosing to ignore all of those benefits in favour of bringing people into the office, it is because they believe that there are business reasons that make the extra costs worthwhile.

I’ve wfh since my first job leaving school 15 or so years ago, I didn’t get the memo about healthier diets 😂
theres a decent amount of roles out there for people who want to wfh, a lot though do like the hybrid or fully office.

To be fair OP what you want is already in place. Employees can request to work from home as a flexible working request, and the employer must consider the request and give a business reason for refusal.

What would you want to change about that?

There’s a huge disadvantage to those who are beginning their careers. How do they learn and develop their careers without direct engagement with seniors. How do they network with their cohort? My firm is incredibly flexible but wfh does have disadvantages.

I’ve also put on well over a stone as I move less. Yes it’s on me but I need to be far more motivated these days.

People forget that they do need to comply with their employer’s reasonable requests. And saying you can’t attend a monthly or weekly team meeting because you have a dog or need to pick children up isn’t really good enough imho.

Most employers would manufacture a 'clear reason' for why all employees need to be in the office - a compulsory one hour stint on Reception, an in person meeting every Tuesday morning/4.30 Friday afternoon, a daily debrief, security reasons - if they want people in, then they will find a way around it.

Just not having a blanket approach with no common sense would be my preference. We have hybrid and whilst there are perks, having to manage the wfh rota is such a pita when you’re not allowed consecutive days, part timers have to pro rata it etc.

id be so happy if everyone could just agree to not take the piss and act like adults. Flexibility should be there if the role allows it.

there’s quite a few who enjoy being in the office and others who’d clearly rather be at home eating healthily 😁 - as long as everything gets done and the expectations are reasonable on both sides, it should work.

my work don’t trust their staff and their approach to wfh makes that obvious. It’s in place because the bosses want to wfh themselves.

It seems you can still claim tax relief: https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-employees/working-at-home

There's are reasons why the government encouraged people back into offices after covid

Supports the economy (thr transport networks/ the local deli/ the corner shop)

And from an employee POV it's not good for MH never to venture out particularly those who live alone. Those in abusive relationships need breathing space.

Both employees and employers benefit from being able share experience. How do young people learn a telephone manner if they never hear people on the phone and they are stuck WFH in their bedroom.

Young people who only interact with family and peers cannot be a good thing.

How is it a weak argument? If employers could no longer have people on site and it all had to be remote, 90% of most larger companies could probably be staffed from overseas.

Would we not end up with two tier employment? All those of us whose jobs CANNOT be done from home being disadvantaged by not being able to live the life of the WFH fraternity (school drop off/pick up, doing bits of housework while working, ability to have pets like a dog which need someone around) and yet being paid usually less? Because someone has to do those jobs, but who is going to want to, when they could find a WFH job?

You cannot claim a tax WFH allowance any more.

But they’d have already done this if they could? It’s such a weak argument.

Yep. We'll all be outsourced to Manila and Bangalore for 50% less wages.

Neighbour disputes would rise ( as we see on threads here already due to the WFH crew taking exception to everyday noise)

Well indeed - but at what point can other jobs be moved. I’m seeing it increasingly with accounting etc.

Like the call centres in India?