To think that workplaces should be less accommodating of personal lives?

I don't think the OPs post refers to accommodations such as 8-4 instead of 9-5 which are normal accommodations. I have worked 8-4 in a 9-5 environment for over 10 years because it helps me avoid rush hour tube - not because I need to. Everyone has the right to split their 7 hour working day however they choose where I work. We are talking about "bending over backwards". I don't want this to be too outing but this year I've had conference calls with people working from the French Alps, hiking with their children, from the beach in Barcelona and from their Grandmother's house in Madrid. With people with toddlers running round whilst they are trying to work, toddlers who need full time attention. We've had one colleague who claimed she was allergic to the building so didn't come in at all - no request for proof of course. I could give many more examples. There are no checks on productivity. It's gone way beyond what is good for morale and is beyond management's capability to rein it back in. I think those are the situations the oP is referring to.

And if someone isn’t performing, whether it’s in WFH or in person, deal with it. Don’t just stop everyone else
The problem is managing or over seeing everyone under you to the level of scrutiny that would be required to then be able to take action with the piss taker in a reasonable, non challengeable way takes so much time and energy that it takes away from the time to actually get in with the decision making tasks that justify a manager's earning.

It's easier to just tightened the rules for all.

Maybe.

If it takes years to get rid of people, I think that changes the whole scenario.

I've wondered how many of the people who think that this kind of entitlement isn't a concern work in the private vs public, or charity, sector. Because IME it is often so difficult to do anything in the latter two that it's not practical in practice in many cases.

It's interesting to me to consider my brother, who now works in a place where he is basically a private setting. He doesn't have any qualms about getting rid of people who aren't interesting in really contributing. He's considered a good boss, not an asshole, willing to be flexible and cares about his teams qol.

But he previously worked in a public sector version of the same position and it was totally different. Apart from really out there behaviour like theft or sexual assault, it was so difficult to get rid of anyone that usually instead they were moved around to a place where they couldn't cause as much damage, in cases where they had to get rid of someone, often they "left" with some kind of severance rather than go through the time it would have taken to fire them.

"Bring your whole self to work" which leads to dressing in fetish gear in the toilets - no thanks.
Making sure nobody has to stay till 7 when all the local after school clubs finish at 5.45 - yes please.

Surely You still have to show that it genuinely impacts productivity though? As I said before, if the work can be done equally well 8-4 as 9-5 without any business impact and that works better for some of your staff then what reason is there to retain a rigid 9-5? No one ever books meetings in my work until 9.30 so from my line of work the ability to be flexible makes no difference.

it’s absolutely not can’t. It’s won’t.

Hard hat on.....

I tried to have a reasoned conversation with a colleague about how non parents are effected when those with children need to suddenly have time off. This was pre WFH being so universal for office roles.

So big snow storm, schools closed, parents had to stay home with their children. Now I get that completely but my comment was that there should be some thanks to those who do come to work and pick up the work that others would be doing normally. I also said that there was no reason, in my opinion, why both parents had to be at home to look after 1 or 2 children - assuming neither had complicated problems of course.

Well you would have thought I'd suggested drowning kittens or tying the children out in the garden in the pouring rain.

Obviously I quite agree with legislation about taking time off when kids are sick etc and things are much easier now that many people can WFH so the impact is less than it used to be.

As for personal lives interfering with work....had a colleague who couldn't come to work as the air con dries his skin and he'd run out of moisturiser. It was going to take at least a week to special order it. Another who was on holiday and couldn't get back as one of the people with him had caught a cold and didn't want to travel home (from Wales, so not a long distance flight or anything).

Sounds like a management issue. Very easy to distinguish between reasonable things to let people have flexibility for and piss taking mentioned I. The original post I responded to. And if someone isn’t performing, whether it’s in WFH or in person, deal with it. Don’t just stop everyone else.

We have tried to make our business a nice place to be, tried to accommodate and help where it's been needed, unfortunately though a couple.of employees have taken the mickey, sat on phones arranging social lives, began to feel entitled about finishing early etc and we have had to clamp down and set firm boundaries (which shouldn't have been crossed in the first place) it's a shame but the minority have spoilt things

I don't think this is always the case.

There are some people in my husband's workplace - civil service - who are absolutely not creating any value.

They can't get rid of them.

I agree.

But my experience is this. Flexibility on an individual basis works really great when your employees are natural responsible people who want to do a good job.

When they aren't, or when some aren't', it makes it more difficult for everyone. Because often you can't say, oh, I know Adam there is a piss taker, or has a poor work ethic, or even that he struggles without direct management, so I won't give him flexibility. But I will for Marie because she is a great responsible employee.

People like Adam will call that out as favoritism or discrimination in an instant.

Or you get less resilient people always needing small, maybe not unreasonable accommodations, so when others need them occasionally there isn't any flexibility left.

This IMO is one reason a lot of workplaces have pulled back from WFH. It's great for those who have a good work ethic and can manage themselves. It's less good for those who are por at self-management, are still learning the ropes, or are a bit lazy. And most workplaces have such people.

Especially in public or non-profit types of settings, a huge deal is made about treating people equally. So the culture and often management don't allow a lot of differential decision making.

You really understood my point, and I appreciate that you read my post carefully instead of jumping to conclusions. It’s definitely a tricky balance for workplaces to strike.

Wow. You are accusing people of not reading your vague, two-sentence OP correctly?

And the sum total of your engagement with hundreds of posts is “it’s a tricky balance to strike?”.

Talk about entitled.

things like that are the same as schools use to justify not accommodating childrens needs. "IF we do it for one, we have to do it for everyone"

Its a fallacy and patently incorrect. Employment law, like school guidelines, allow space for reasonable accommodations to be made on a case by case basis in special circumstances.

The resentment is the other employees issue, and quite honestly, as long as the employer is being fair and Sue has negotiated time to leave early to collect her kids due to lack of childcare, or because one is disabled, then it's between Sue and HR and no-one elses business.

An accommodation to collect children from school, say, cannot be made for one individual - it has to be extended to all parents

No it doesn't. Flexi working arrangements can be given to one team member if it has no impact on the team - we have one team member who doesn't start until 9:30 because he drops his kids at school, it can be a bit of a pain at times because overnight issues need handled first thing in the mornings. I wouldn't ask for/or be allowed the same because it would leave us without cover at times and as I am a grown up I can accept he got in there first with his request.

We (ab)use it to the teams benefit and if anything needs watching after 4pm he picks it up instead of us hanging about - it means at times he gets stuck with late nights if something happens late afternoon as he is the only one left in, so it all evens out and works for the team as a whole.

Also flexi working should not only be extended to parents, it is supportive for anyone with any caring responsibilities, or anything else, as long as there is strong management and a good team ethos it should not be a issue.

If there are issues with resentment that needs dealt with, removing the flexi working option might feel like an easy fix but it is no guarantee those feeling resentment will not move onto something else to complain about.

My daughter works in a place where they treat their employees like their own family !!
it’s a very good company to work for they have staff that don’t leave and they have rounds of interviews so they get the right candidates in !
I have never known a company like it !! And from what I see it woukd do other companies the world of good to treat there staff like this my daughter loves her jobs and works really hard so tbh it’s a win win all round

That is bad. The issue must be addressed.

:-)

I have worked in a number of places. I have had good and poor manager's. The reality is that people have lives beyond work. At times workers need some flexibility re taking time off or using some holidays to deal with certain things. If you have health issues, a sick child or partner or elderly parents you may need some time off and some bosses then can show a bit of flexibility. Then at later stage this worker can be more willing to work extra hours or cover when someone else's is on holidays.

One of my friends recently refused to apply for a role the boss wanted them to apply for.
They knew the boss delegates a lot of their work to this role. The same boss had shown no flexibility to my friend when they asked for a certain thing. This was despite my friend doing extra hours and days when the business was very short staffed.

My friend is planning to leave this job in the next 6- 12 months for a number of reasons.

If they weren't still making a profit off of their labour, then they wouldn't.

Yes. We have a woman at our place who regularly takes "mental health" breaks the day after posting her drug fuelled antics from the night before all over social media. She has managed to wangle WFH every Monday...even though she can't do her job WFH and has no internet at her new place even if she could.

She often sits doing bugger all and management won't do a thing because she has pulled the mental health card, so is now "protected". She broke up with her partner and took sick leave. This is a 25 year old woman who had been with her partner for a year max for crying out loud! Drives me insane!

Me too. I disappear for 2 hours during the working day to see my personal trainer once a week

Do work know? Yes. Do I travel at weekends and log on in the middle of the night to join a meeting with people in a different time zone? Also yes. Would I be prepared to do either of those if I worked somewhere that expected teams to be green 9-5? No I wouldn't

I have skills and experience that my company needs, I deliver and I am an adult. I expect work to treat me like one.

Your post had the bare minimum info, you can’t moan at people for not understanding you.

Your post was fairly devoid of context and detail to be fair.

In fairness to the OP it sounds like "bending over backwards" is happening for normal life occurrences, not for the exceptional out of the blue occurrences. Obviously shit happens and when it does, things can fall apart a bit and sympathy/accommodation is required. It's when it becomes mainstream that you have to worry more about the impact on the business and other colleagues. An accommodation to collect children from school, say, cannot be made for one individual - it has to be extended to all parents, and once it has been, it's hard to keep it contained at just children - it would be to care for elderly parents etc., and before you know where you are, people leave early to get a shop in. So it really all depends on keeping it reasonable. I feel like some workplaces (incl. mine) have gone beyond the reasonable. In fact we know from anonymous feedback surveys that this is causing huge resentment.