To think the call back into the office is an example of the patriarchy very much alive and well?

There are some valid reasons for wanting people to go back into the office. Certain elements of some jobs are much better done physically. Team building, training, mentoring of younger staff suffered hugely during the period when all white collar jobs were remote.

That said it's true that there's a powerful impetus in the "all back to work" lobby which is threatened by WFH predominantly because its been driven mainly by the needs of women. WFH tends to benefit women more for the oft-stated reasons that it allows a more flexible approach to childcare, enables life admin and errands of the sort that women tend to do.

I think a lot of the hot air coming from some financial institutions and certain Right Wing papers about how WFH is a "skivers charter" is self-serving bollocks. The people who complain about "popping on a wash" being theft of time from your employer are the same people who are happy to spend an entire day at the golf course or in the pub boozing in the name of "networking". Why is five minutes doing laundry or 45 minutes at the dentist worse than a boozy lunch? The only real difference is that men have been doing the latter for time immemorial whereas flexible working is a relatively new development and something which women have tended to do.

It's unadulterated nonsense that people work harder in the office. I'm infinitely more productive at home: I don't have an hour of dead time either side of the day commuting and I don't have to spend a good chunk of my day sitting in pointless meetings or listening to people wittering on about what they're watching on Netflix when I could be working.

I think a mix of home and office is probably the solution for most people, but I think the complaints about "skivers charters" are mainly the last gasp of blokes who are threatened by the fact that they're no longer able to limit women's progression on the basis that "children get in the way". It's just common sense that allowing people to work in a way which suits their lives is likely to make them more productive. The only real objection men have to it is that it makes it easier for women to get more done.

I totally agree with you OP

I have two assistants who both have young children and allow them to work from home because I want them to be as stress-free as possible so that they can concentrate on their work.

I don't want them worrying about after school clubs and breakfast clubs and child minders.

I'm child free by choice and in my late '50s but I still appreciate what it must be like to be a working mother.

Also, some youngsters don't even like speaking on the phone nowadays!

Wll I don't think two parents working full time is really very compatible with family life in many/most cases, unless they are on very high salaries. So I agree there, and I think this is something society needs to consider.

However, I also think that employers have plenty of good reasons not to want people mainly working from home, and since they are the one paying for an employee to do something, they are the ones who get to define what that something is. A company is successful or not in large part based on how the owners decide to manage it, and it's their risk if they fail.

I have to say I don’t think “I have to work from home so I can cook dinner, do the washing and childcare” is a great argument against the patriarchy, it sounds in fact like you’re well and truly invested in the state of the patriarchy and actively supporting it.

You really want to go against the patriarchy, start at home.

Why do people think these evil employers WANT people back in the office if it’s true that everyone’s just as productive from home? Perhaps they all love their own apparently pointless commutes. Or just love paying for office space unnecessarily.

Or perhaps it’s just the case that for most jobs, some level of being on site massively improves cohesion, development and productivity.

Saying women have to work from home, or that disproportionately they should, would also rule women out from many careers that can never be done from home - so no female lab scientists, paramedics, or security guards, to name three jobs at random. Progressive this isn’t.

But what if there is no partner? What if the woman has been widowed or divorced?

It sounds like you're saying that women have a bigger need to stay at home to look after the children and do chores.

Fuck that.

I like a hybrid approach to working in an office because it's better for my mental health. Luckily I have a partner who shares parental and household responsibilities, and an employer who allows me to WFH two days a week

WFH threads are always full of people who say they work much better at home, there clearly people who don’t though, no one admits though.

I have a friend who has WFH since covid and has been extremely unwilling to go back in, she works very effectively at home because she’s done the job for 20 years. The junior staff though are struggling hugely. Every time they have a question they have to find someone to put a call request through and ask rather than someone just answering/showing them. Said loads of time has been wasted because of this and mistakes as stuff isn’t just getting picked up so easily. So she’s now going in.

I don't doubt that Patriarchy exists.
But I've read so many posts on MN that blame it for something that has nothing to do with it that I just switch off to it now.

What you mean is it makes childcare cheaper for you. Realistically, unless you work very unsociable hours you don’t have childcare responsibilities that can’t be solved by simply paying for more childcare. You just don’t want to.

I found working from home to be terribly depressing. Blurring the line between my workplace and my home was really bad for my mental health. I was never fully engaged with anything and struggled a lot.

I am however very, very grateful for hybrid working. My husband and I are home almost every day between us which means I can still work full time (my daughter is neurodiverse and in high school so there's no after school care and she can't cope on her own for too long).

(And yes - childcare is a 50/50 responsibility but my husband earns much more than I do so it would only make sense for me to drop my hours. And yes I'm aware that is a societal problem, the combination of him having parents who paid for university and my maternity leaves put me behind him.)

As a manager, I think it's super important to physically see the members of my team each week so I have a core day each week where everyone is in. I work in the office 3.5 days and my workplace requires everyone to be there 60% of their contracted time which I agree with. If someone on my team has a specific additional need temporarily etc then I am super flexible about it. I think there are plenty of middle grounds that can work if people are reasonable.

Surely WFH makes women more under the thumb of the patriarchy, confined to the home, doing the childcare and popping the fucking washing on?

I work for a large company which is “hybrid” - basically there is an office (somewhat reduced in size since Covid). Most people work from home and any mandatory office days (if any) are determined within each individual department.

I choose to go into the office 2-3 times a week because I enjoy it and I feel I work better there. But a huge amount of staff don’t come in at all and literally haven’t been seen in person for months.

Let me tell you, there absolutely is a two tier workforce. It is the people who are present in the office (the same faces all the time) who are put forward for the big projects etc that will stand them in good stead for promotion. The ones who never come in are not thought of particularly highly. And I’m sure most are fine with just plodding along but some people want more

Mine too, although to be fair the laundry has always been his thing even when we both commuted.

What does your employment contract state as your place of work?

I'd much rather push for both partners to take an equal share of the domestic workload than fight for the right to work in a more "invisible" role that allows me to take on more than my fair share whilst he reaps the benefit of office presence and does less.

I agree, those of us who are responsible for everything benefit greatly from WFH. Lots of my male colleagues choose to go into the office and I always think what a luxury for them. They openly say it's to avoid the 'Chaos'.

Employers exist to make money or provide a service. There not there to provide work that suits the whims of their staff.

There is clearly a reason why the tide is turning and that is because it's not 100% effective for people to work from home. Unless you are in a job that is in high demand and few candidates I'd be careful how much you push back. Employers generally want staff who agree to the rules.

You sound absolutely ridiculous and very entitled. Why not make your lazy husband do some more chores and childcare if you're so concerned about the 'patriarchy'?

This.

And there is evidence that WFH is harming young women's careers.
Hybrid works best I think.

I don't feel this is a patriarchy thing. It's in most cases a "need to know my staff are doing some work" things.

My DP wfh. I can't in my job. He does manage to put a wash on and run the hoover round. I don't know what the patriarchy would make of that.

This.