That ship has sailed

Well that sounds good in theory, but the truth is that more people say they are unable to go back to work due to long term sickness than ever before.

I suspect this is largely among a cohort of low paid, low skilled workers whose jobs cannot be done from home, finding they are only marginally less well off (but much happier) claiming long term sickness or disability benefits compared to slogging it out in a low reward job several days a week.

If their jobs were cushier, better paid, or of the WFH variety, they may be rather more willing to keep doing them, but some people are never going to have those sorts of jobs because they don't have the ability or the qualifications.

It's interesting that you say you save a lot of money on fuel. People who now manage to WFH in a job where that was never an explicit part of the contract are raking it in financially. They realised this during Covid and it's no wonder they are reluctant to stop. They've moved further out of big cities to cheaper areas, they've cut down on paid childcare, they don't have commuting costs, maybe they can now run one family car instead of two. It stands to reason they are reluctant to give that up.

But unless your contract was negotiated on the basis of a typical week being WFH with the occasional in-person meeting to attend, then you are wanting to have your cake and eat it. I am not against WFH per se, but I do think people have become rather entitled and resistant to putting themselves out, and expect the world of business to bend to them while still taking the same salary. If companies genuinely didn't feel any negative effects from that then they'd not be making a fuss about getting you all back in, would they? They'd be ending their tenancies on their office buildings and saving a ton of money and going completely WFH for everyone, with business suites/conference rooms hired for the occasional in person meeting as necessary.

I think companies should re-negotiate people's contracts. Give them the choice of either coming into the office for however many days a week they deem necessary, or saying you can WFH except for 2 days a month or whatever, but you need to take a 20% pay cut. (or whatever amount they deem reasonable in the circumstances.)

People saying they will just leave if their companies push are forgetting that even if their company capitulates to keep you in the short term, you may well be looked over for promotion or a decent pay rise if you are seen as uncooperative and inflexible in ways that you never would have felt entitled to be pre-COVID.

Perhaps they will save quite a bit of money by calling your bluff and allowing you to leave, then re-hiring for much less on a contract where a clear WFH is specified from the beginning.

I wasn't offering any view on whether the OP's employers are "poor" or "power tripping" though.

It's not my decision to try to make the OP go back to the office. I am not, in fact, defending any such decision - it sounds like you think I am... I am just saying, this is a battle that the OP is likely to lose, so she should look for another job that does suit her.

I accept that in your experience, the Jeff Bezos / Mark Zuckerberg / Rupert Murdochs of this world hold a deep and unwavering devotion to ensuring their employees get to live their best lives, and in return their workforces put in 110 per cent; it has not been my experience, but we're all different aren't we...

I don’t really understand all the hand-wringing. If my employer introduced a working practice or arrangement that I didn’t like, and I couldn’t persuade them to give me more flexible working, I’d look for another job that had preferable working arrangements. They don’t run their business for my convenience.

Well the reality is a happy workforce is a more productive workforce, numerous studies back this up. Surely you know this?

The question is why do employers deliberately want to do something they know will make their employees unhappy and therefore less productive. There’s usually some power tripping management involved who think everyone prioritises work as much as they do. They often don’t understand the reality of many of their employees’ mindsets. They are extremely poor managers.

Your claim is really not borne out by reality. Many employers are not backing down in their requirement for office workers to be in the office a certain amount. By all means, encourage the OP to go on strike / moan and whinge / do a poor job / threaten to leave (without really meaning it), but that is unlikely to be helpful to her. At best, it makes her and those around her miserable; at worst, she ends up being taken down a disciplinary process, as is happening in other companies where employees are refusing to fulfil the contracts they signed pre-2020.

The employer will presumably have engaged Legal, HR, unions etc before starting the push; most corporate employers don't roll something out to find out how the workforce thinks, they find out beforehand and decide how to deal with it. So the idea that the employer is there going "oh I wasn't expecting this, maybe we should change our minds" - I don't really know why anyone would think that.

Employment is a limited two-way street, sure; but it's not equal by any means. Employees are free to take their labour elsewhere, but they're unlikely to win a battle of wills that the employer has knowingly started!

Nope, remote working very much a thing in low paid customer service and call centre work. It's the subject of frequent complaints on this disproportionately middle class website!

Unfortunately some people are not working very effectively from home - they are awol or not getting on very well which is more difficult to get away with in the office.
Young people new to the workplace are not getting the benefit of observing experienced colleagues, it’s more difficult to bounce and share ideas and these employees are not progressing or as happy as they were when 5 days a week was the norm.
I understand both sides and I think a compromise if flexible working can be found.
For those who say people will vote with their feet - I always remember what a boss told me when I was young. Nobody is irreplaceable.

Well, some will leave, but jobs are not exactly growing on trees these days so many will stay. Not unreasonable to have people back in the office. DS does 2 days a week and DD probably one or two, but sometimes has to go to offices several hours drive away and an overnight stay for meetings. I suspect that companies will get most of their way on this one, and also that small businesses, cafes, shops etc that rely on employees working locally will be on board with the idea. Only office workers are affected by this; generally not possible to assemble a Rolls Royce plane engine in your home office, nor can you carry out open heart surgery there. A middle-class office worker problem, I feel.

Oh I’ve worked and still work in such environments- no the work force don’t have all the power, but neither do the bosses. Successful business relies on the cooperation between workers and bosses. To be effective work has to be a mutually reciprocal arrangement. At the moment there is a stand off where employees aren’t as productive as they could be.

I’m surprised, if you work in a corporate environment that you haven’t had experience of this, or struggle to understand a widely understood concept in that environment

But it works both ways, employers have the choice of talented employees from all four corners of the UK with remote working, they are not limited to the local area where they are competing with similar businesses for a small staff pool.

That’s it. The people who are constantly on orange aren’t being managed properly so those who do wfh effectively are lumped into the same category as them.

I’ve worked with a few people who wfh and then are gone after normal school pick up time and say they “make up the time in
the evening”, some do this, some don’t. Often the children are of an age where they can be left if the worker was to log back on again. I see it in my street though which is round the corner from a primary school, people either on Teams calls or work phone calls or just sat waiting for kids to come out of school so they go back to work or not.

A neighbour and friend works for Barclays Bank and hates wfh because she says they’re really harshly policed if she does this. She prefers to be in the office as there’s not so much managers breathing down their necks there. I get that employers need to monitor what staff do when WFH but it shouldn’t be a Big Brother technique.

Problem is house prices closed to many locations are now prohibitive so hard to find enough staff who live close

Your only a payroll number, they will replace you.
Good luck

😂 I have completely lost sight of what your argument is. Are you saying that the employees hold all the power? Employers will give in to any demand because their workforce is unhappy? You must not have worked in corporate environments 🤣🤣🤣

Well, if the workforce are disengaged they’re not going to be very productive or willing to go the extra mile. I think the phrase is silent quitting,

It's like an article of faith for some posters on here. They believe everyone will be back in the office because that's the natural order of things.

I am sorry that you've got confused, I am not the employer, just observing my employer and colleagues.

The employer decided in advance that they were willing to trade-off some (unspecified number of) people leaving, for having most in the office 2 days a week. Many people are loudly bitching, whining, moaning, arguing, and threatening to leave. In our department of c.85, that has translated to one actual leaver, who made the decision quickly and acted. Didn't spend the last 12 months making lots of noise in the hope of getting the employer's decision changed - just did what she needed to, good for her.

But it's hardly a massive exodus. I am not sure why you think this is terrible?

If the OP were truly motivated, she'd be sorting out her CV instead of posting on Mumsnet about how she plans a campaign of non violent resistance, surely?

This is not your employers fault.
You are the cause.
You have options.
Move nearer your job or get a job nearer your home.

Pre covid many companies were encouraging staff to WFH and to attend mtgs virtually instead of in person to reduce costs, environmental impact. The push to return to in person is a reaction to covid. And lets be honest much of the reduction seen in productivity during covid wasn't due to WFH itself - but due to it happening in areas where the structure wasn't already up and running - IT, management or simply novelty of WFH. Plus, let's not forget the simple fact of it being carried out against the backdrop of covid made it an unnatural process. Plenty of workplaces had successful WFH as the norm previously as a plus for work/life balance and a reduction in their operating costs.

I think when my 12-month contract is up early next year I am going to be donating my own brought office chair to charity.

I just am struggling to imagine a work from home job. Never called in sick but the two colleagues I started with who aren’t strangers to going getting signed off whilst on our FTC will be thoroughly looked after I imagine.

Please don’t get me started on people who started a month later after us who sit there 30 mins for a call to come in, wildly unfair. Thanks for in office day for opening my ears to that one.

Completely disagree. All statistics say it is on the rise and with an aging population and the need for more workforce participation that will continue.

People are frustrated at subpar services.

Many have explained about hearing kids/dogs/postman etc in the background of some calls. Waiting forever for emails response etc..

No one is saying all wfh people are bad, but it's the bad apples that spoil it for everyone else.

If productivity was on the up overall, companies wouldn't need to call people back.

It saw great results temporarily. A lot of that increased productivity has slipped away over time.

Younger, more inexperienced people largely benefit from more time in the office (not all, but most of the ones I have worked with), as it’s easier to learn - both the business and general work skills. Ditto for people starting new jobs.

Totally agree with this

These threads always bring out the posters who see all office workers as identikit inveterate slackers who’ll do anything but work unless they are sitting under the overseer’s watchful eye all day. Usually these comments are accompanied by a dollop of schadenfreude that something people value is being taken away and there’s nothing they can do about it.

What a depressing way to look at other people.

I don’t doubt there are slackers, btw, but my experience is that in decent jobs they are a minority.