AIBU to think if your boss wants you in the office, they should help pay to get you there?

She probably found the advice on the same channels that tell small business owners that they can put their kids school fees through the business and get a tax deduction

I’m all for hybrid working and luckily my employer seems to want to stick at 50%

however I have seen the negative impact it has on new joiners - particularly new grads if it isn’t managed properly

and just last week someone in my team had an issue and had a moan and the team in the office that day worked together to resolve it. That wouldn’t have happened if he’d just been stewing on it at home

so whilst there is an element of presenteeism some time in the office as a team or being able to have face to face meetings is important

I was told by someone at work seeking to have her travel covered that it wasn’t the case. I hadn’t read that HMRC guidance.

My separate point stands though that it’s not a big expense to be taxed on so neither here nor there really.

Push back on presenteeism.

We either pay it or make alternative arrangements, what else can we do?

Yes but when wages don’t keep pace with transport costs (or indeed housing costs local to the office location), then what?

The cost of rail travel in the UK is prohibitively high for many.

Nice try.

That’s ridiculous. I can see some reason for it if they decide to move offices over an hour from original location then paying the difference but otherwise no. Where you chose to live is not the employer’s concern.

I think it depends on the contract.

I was employed on a work from home contract, with no office expectation at all. I factored that in to the overall offer when I took the job.

After 3 years they wanted to do a change of contract (all done legally) which stated that we were in the office 4 days a week. Some people left because of how far from the office they lived (like 4 hours each way away). And others wanted to renegotiate pay because the lack of commuting costs had been factored in to their accepting the job. I don't think that is unreasonable.

If someone was on an office contact and just happened to be allowed to WFH more then it's unreasonable to ask for more money.

Unless the job was originally advertised as remote and they are changing that then no they shouldn’t pay your travelling expenses for you to go to work. Should people pay the money back to the company that they have saved during lockdown by working from home?

Transport costs but we all have to pay our transport costs to get to work

I think if people were hired with contracts stating hybrid working and listing how many days they were expected in the office or with home working contracts then I can understand why employees are annoyed that the employer wants to change their part of the agreement/contract.

For those who are live in completely different locations it makes sense that the employer either honours their hybrid/remote working or contribute to transport costs.

People who live close to work obviously don't need this extra support.

I am always surprised and saddened at how many people commenting on this type of threads who blindly support employers no matter what they do...

This

It's always been the employee's responsibility to get themselves to work; it's a factor when applying to jobs. And if the contract says a particular office is their place of work, they have to get themselves there.

Now if they have to travel to a different office on occasion at the request of the employer, that cost should be picked up by the employer. But again, that will be in the contract.

How do you think their wages are paid? Does it “magically” appear in their “fake” bank accounts?

What a ridiculous comment and really shows you are completely ignorant about any other type of work done.

This - for years, if they have had an office based contract but been working at home, they have effectively benefited from no commute costs.

My DHs company has done everything over last 4 years to get back to pre COVID work practices : tried to meet staff half way by increasing back to 3 days slowly but barely 30% have complied. Many played games by arriving for half a day or even just a few hours before going back home, for example. They decided to play hardball recently and said office presence would be an appraisal criteria and will impact performance assessment and bonus calculations - which has caused furore, even though they just want people to comply with their contracts. It was also considered in a recent round of redundancies - those who were non compliant were in a weaker position. Staff have had years to adjust childcare and to work with spouses the rejig (or find alternative jobs) but still expect to be carried.

Another round of redundancies are pending, with AI services being cited as useful and cheaper alternatives to human staff that no one ever sees or interacts with. They’ve shot themselves in the foot really. My DH is present 5 days a week 7.30-7 and on call outside those hours (he is c-suite adjacent though). Its the only way to prove indispensability. People are foolish to kick off about wanting more money in this climate when the easiest option for firms is to let staff go.

Companies have saved a lot in costs by offering WFH, in that they need less office space and other things. WFH employees do have some extra costs - they pay for their own heat, light, air cooling and possibly improved WiFi.

Don’t feel too sad for the companies who’ve benefitted.

On Barclays, I think it depends on the contract whether the company should contribute or not.

What if your employees are distributed over a wide area due to operational needs in specific areas of the country? Say Scotland to Cornwall?

"It's always been normal", yes, past tense. Times change.

The situation isn't the same for everyone or every company. In general, companies have taken measures to allow WFH, such as closing buildings and stagnating employee salaries. To get people back into work they need to reverse that strategy and invest if that's the way they intend to go.

For companies that have increased employee salaries in-line with inflation and have the original offices available then there is little argument to request a salary increase.

For the majority wfh's that is not the case. People have accepted lower salaries/salary increases in return for more flexibility. It is therefore, reasonable to expect some form of financial incentive to return back to the office.

If the company however, decided to go through the full WFH process and change working conditions (to their benefit) they can't then just expect employees to just jump back into an office full time.

My company has closed offices across the world. They understand that there is a balance. The office count is now down to 2 in the UK whereas it was 10 pre-covid.. Our CEO has stated that it helps the business financially. Most employees are now on WFH contracts. If they were to get people back into the office what should they do? This is a tech company and the story is the same for many other global companies.

I absolutely hate that employers want people in the office. It's totally pointless and enforced socialisation.

If it’s a change of contract then my workplace would sub your commute for a specified period

I wouldnt expect employers to pay an employees commuting cost normally. But if a worker was hired with a contract of 3 days wfh and thats been switched to 2, theres a financial loss to the worker, which the company should rightly have to compensate.

I've always paid to get to work,
I know people who work in the community and who take the piss with their travel costs depending on the base they select. I worked in the office and knew exactly who was taking the piss and it really annoyed me.

If the contract says you can WFH for 2 days and that was the expectation and then it changed, then there's an issue

But no. You pay to get to work and you travel in your own time.

Again, I know people who decided their home was their base and left their home when the work day started to travel an hour to their first appointment

And then travelled an hour to arrive back at home so they got home when work ended

9am : Leave home to get to first appointment (paid for travel on expenses)
10am: first appointment
More appointments
12 pm: Lunch
1pm: restart
3pm: Last appointment
4pm: Leave appointment to travel home (paid for travel on expenses)
5pm: Arrive at home

Meanwhile I was doing this
8am: Leave home for work (Unpaid and in own time)
9am: start work
12pm: Lunch
1pm: Restart work
5pm: Finish work. Travel Home in own time and paid by me
6pm Arrive at home

We have both done the same number of hours at work (9am to 5pm)
I've done 2 hours of unpaid commuting
The other person has been paid to leave home when work starts and gets paid to travel to their first appointment and travel back home from their last appointment

I have done at least 2 more hours actual work whilst the other person has done at least 2 hours a day travelling to an appointment

Bitter. Moi?

I think travel costs and time spent getting to and from work should be considered if you can work from home. Your employer is expecting you to waste your time travelling, waste your money on petrol/parking/rail ticket as well as contributing to pollution which is another issue in itself. I know most people will say, well you agreed to this when you took the job or it's part of your contract. This is true and legally you have to accept it or get another job but wouldn't it be great if employers took these things into consideration and did what was best for their employees (as long as it didn't effect the work they produced). I'm a teacher so it doesn't apply to me but my husband works from home and it's been a lifesaver in terms of flexibility with our children and saving money. He also says he gets far more work done at home as there as less distractions.

It’s not as straight forward as that though is it.

I, and most of my team, were recruited during 2022 so still very much in the WFH era. We have a fairly niche skill set and it meant that they were able to employ people they wouldn’t have been able to previously due to location.

The expectation (though not contracted) has always been one day per week and we all factored this in when we accepted employment. Travel is 1-2 hours each way to one of our offices for all of us, which is fine once per week but two or more days would mean a SIGNIFICANT cost and additional commuting hours.

more time in the office would change the whole model. Especially against a backdrop of no pay rises and ever decreasing bonuses.

Getting to work has always been a private cost.