To feel relieved that flexible working might be on the agenda again?

Hybrid working not only wfh.

I would be thinking what would make more AI proof, WFH or going into the office?

I'm really surprised by this change of tack.

My employer is having a back to work push atm and it is needed. Some people might be just as productive at home and obviously some people are lazy in the office, but productivity, training, networking, general working relationships and collaboration are all better when people are in the office.

Yes, good managers may be able to work around it, but just like in every other post, every business will have it's share of not perfect managers, and this makes it easier to manage.

I love the way 'poor managers' are always trotted out when a company struggles to know it's remote staff are productive. Of course it is, but why would you expect a company not to have poor managers? They're often fairly junior roles, given people management responsibilities without training, and can be the ones skiving when wfh just as much, if not more, than the 'staff'.

Companies need the managers in to manage them properly, as much as the managers need the staff in.

As always, the badly-behaved few ruin it for the well-behaved many.

Work from home was removed from our company due to some people simply not being available during work hours. Teams status set to ‘away’ for the majority of the time, phone ringing unanswered.

I think the people who are clamouring to be allowed to work from home still, don’t have insight into just how many disciplinaries are going on with people due to misuse of the policy.

I agree. I manage 20+ offices globally. The constant “can’t do the call as “I’m waiting for a delivery, I have a plumber in, I need to X Y Z” drives me insane. London employees with London weighting should come in and stick to their hybrid working policy. I mean, you moved out to the sticks and still getting paid a London wage…come on. Other countries have the same issue. Management in a lot of companies see it as a brilliant opportunity to reduce floorspace, close offices and save a lot of money. And that’s when employees start to make a fuss “yeah but, no but”. It’s a massive sinking ship.

Managers need to lead by example. The tricky thing is when you have a global company that has teams dotted around the globe, all reporting to managers not based in the same office. Everyone ends up taking the piss.

The argument that people need to be in so managers can manage them also falls short when in many cases i know, people have managers who don't sit in the same office. Or do sit in the same office, but hybrid policies don't mandate they're actually in on the same days as people they manage!

To be honest, I’m expecting some attrition, and I’ll welcome that, as it will give me the flexibility to select my own new team. Of course people don’t like it: but a team PIP means I demonstrate the same expectations of everyone working in that team, and everything is transparent. Everybody logs their output in the system; everybody gives an exception report where they haven’t been able to; everybody has a target response time on a particular communication or activity. It’s going to become apparent who’s performing, who’s taking the piss, and who’s struggling because their work is being affected by others.

If it's difficult to manage teams based all over without people taking the piss, why woukd any form of remote working be different?

Managers are employees like any other, and many are not particualrly senior or well paid. Companies are supporting them when they insist on a move back to the office.

There's also the issue of shit pay not covering the huge transport costs of many entry-level jobs in big cities when workers have to commute in - transport costs which have risen higher and higher in the years since Covid.

I was talking to someone who's trying to find specific entry-level work in the sector they're trained in in London - £25,000 a year and the transport costs are £6k a year from their home. How's ANYONE going to afford to actually undertake that job with those sorts of costs? The option of moving closer to London is out, too, because the salary just wouldn't support the cost of paying rent.

I guess, the answer to that one is; 'find work in a different sector, closer to home' but there aren't enough jobs to begin with, the pay is even lower and, quite often, there are zero options to begin a career in the sector you've studied for years to get into when the salary just doesn't adequately allow for paying high transport costs.

I once won an achiever's award for a piece of business I did that absolutely wouldn't have happened if I'd been working remotely. A genuine real life watercooler moment. I was making a drink in the kitchen, and pondering a deal that was almost but not quite done. A more experienced colleague came in and we were making small talk, I mentioned this deal that was nearly there and she said why don't you....

You just don't get that remotely.

Eta I wouldn't have called her to ask for help, I didn't know her particularly well, which would have been even less if we worked remotely, I didn't realise I was asking for help, and I wouldn't have known she was the person to ask for help anyway.

In theory nothing wrong with WFH and if conscientious employees it works for everyone particular in professional roles where the worker could be spending relatively long periods of time concentrating on a piece of work where there is limited need for lots of contact with colleagues/suppliers/customers.

However, far too many customer service standards have nose dived especially in front line customer service roles especially in public sector like HMRC, DVLA, local councils, NHS, etc., where it's nigh on impossible to speak to anyone as the phones are never answered, and when you do, the quality of the line is poor, or there is dog barking, kids screaming, doorbell ringing, or whatever in the background meaning the staff member isn't concentrating on what you're trying to talk to them about. Then other IT problems, i.e. "I can't log in to that system at the moment as my internet is down", etc.

I think customer serving roles definitely should be back to being in offices, call centres etc., and WFH banned completely.

Roles that don't routinely involve significant amounts of talking to customers/suppliers/other staff should continue to be WFH optional, but with proper management to ensure the staff are available and working at times required by the organisation.

Away doesn’t mean not working though, I’m frequently away because I’m working on a system outside of Teams

fully agree! New recruits who turn up to a near-empty office will pack up and leave within a year. Every person that is able to come to the office should adhere to a hybrid policy. The reality is very different.

I also think London Weighting needs to be scrapped for those not actually commuting to London. I know of far too many people still getting a London weighting despite moving away and barely ever going into their old London office. It's just piss-taking.

All of my team wfh - we get plaudits all the time for our hard work. Half of team is in India and the other half in the UK. We can deal with things at different times of day.

I'm in two minds over this, as I can see how the demand for flexible working has been to the detriment of some businesses, and if the business needs people on site, then they should be able to "summon" their employees.

My DH can WFH up to 2 days a week. He works for an engineering company, and obviously if there is practical work to be done, he needs to be on site.

The other day he was at work and had a huge IT issue. Not a single IT worker on site and it took 2 hours to reach them by phone, as both appeared to be doing the morning school run (they weren't meant to be - the company clearly states no childcare when working from home). No doubt it will now be made clear to IT that one of them needs to be on site every day, which I think is fair.

On the plus side, it takes traffic off the road, and can make childcare more affordable.

The problem is that too many people take advantage of being able to WFH. A company needs to be able to have staff in the office when needed.

YANBU, I'm looking into my next move at the moment in a fairly skills-short type of work and one sector in particular seems to have a lot of roles that are 5 days in office, which seems nuts to me when the skillset is quite hard to find. I've already said no to one agent about going forward for a role like that because most are still flexible.

WFH allows me to eat better, go to the gym more and not to worry about things like keeping up with the laundry and I need quiet to concentrate on my role.

And it's been over 15 years since I worked in office full time, so I am not going back, especially when it's DS GCSE year and he will need a lot of support so there's no way I'm moving to a more demanding job and losing 6 hours of my week to a commute at the moment.

ʻIt's the "chatting" that the homebodies are convinced is such a waste of time where such a lot the training, learning and business is done.

I go in once a week. I am expected in once a month but I like to go in once a week.
Regarding moaning about a 40 minute commute, my commute would be 40 minutes without traffic. In peak times it’s 1.5 hours. I will moan about that because I’ve seen (and others) that we can do what we do at our desks at home, the same as our desks in an office, but at home. Therefore that can be 2-3 hours of my day, sitting in my car !
I do agree that young people going into the workplace benefit from office working and collaborating but I’m 46 and don’t want to impress anyone so I’m happy with what I’ve got at the moment.

It depends hugely on the job you do and your level of seniority.

For career starters I do think some requirement to be in an environment with peers at least some of the time is important: it's much harder to get that peer learning which is so vital if you don't talk to anyone other than via Teams. The post COVID generation of starters at my place have taken longer to adapt to some of the 'soft' elements of work than people did in previous generations. And that's before you get to the social anxiety which seems to afflict people.

BUT: for senior people it's a very different ballgame. I work from home as much as possible (typically I go in twice a week) for the simple reason that I can get about three times as much work done at home than in the office. The office environment has its social upsides but for me it's not conducive at all to the sort of thinking that you need to do for big projects. The endless distractions of being in the office (IT glitches, chit-chat about last night's TV or someone's holiday, tea runs) drain a vast amount of my time and I can work much longer hours without a commute. We're always being told people who WFH are skivers but I promise you I work from about 6am to 7pm most days: if I'm going in I lose at least an hour and a half of that commuting. Senior people who don't need guidance tend to do much more and better work when left to get on with things on their own.

This has become a silly political football which is used to make people who need flexible working (such as people who parent their children) feel that they are skiving. And honestly I think a lot of it is old-fashioned misogyny.

Generations of blokes have worked flexibly under the guise of networking (golfing, afternoons in the pub etc) while their spouses kept the lights on at home and are now crying foul because their partners take ten minutes to put some washing on every now and then. Honestly I think it's hugely hypocritical.

Needs to be case by case, always.

Yes, but if you don't go in who are they collaborating with? You'll say that's not your problem, but you benefitted from it when you wanted it.

Flexible working is great, but doesn't just mean working from home. And generally speaking, I don't think solely working from home is good for most people. It's much harder to feel connected and part of a team when you're never physically with your team and you miss out on the conversations that just happen.

There's no issue if I nip out for a couple of hours to deal with something, walk the dog, have a lie down or whatever, because flexibility means give and take. It doesn't work when it's only take. If my status shows away or unavailable then I'm unavailable, just as I am if I'm in a meeting or on do not disturb.

Being able to have a mix of working on site and from home, with earlier/later starts and finishes is what suits me. I don't need more of a push on home working, but think it's great for those who would otherwise be unable to physically work.

When we get new starters I do go in more often to help train them, but in my team there is another team manager who is 100% office based as that’s what he prefers. He lives a 5 min drive away, so he tends to do any in office training. We currently have a new starter, she’ll be office based for about 6 weeks until she’s up to speed, and then can WFH when needed