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

It would depend on their contract surely? All my contracts have been with a location/s or office listed on there and it was for me to pay to get to and from that location.

And companies selling alcohol, tobacco and fuel… do they need loans, bank accounts, access to hedging and debt capital markets? Do they ever undertake M&A? Or is all that fake too?

I agree, there are benefits to wfh.
I think the key is that it should be far easier to manage. And I disagree that it is necessarily easy to see who is exploiting it and who is not. Managing performance remotely is quite a different kettle of fish to managing in the office face to face. And not enough managers will be equipped or able to do it effectively. Performance measures are not always as pinned down as they should be.
Once that changes, so will WFH.

I took my job c20 years ago. What do you think has increased at a faster rate since then…. Transport costs or wages?

YANBU. I don't think the employees should back down on this. The push for a return to office is frankly bullshit.

bingo. These are matters for the market to determine

In theory indeed….. transport costs have increased at a rate far in excess of wages.

It became a cost to consider when many companies started to save money by downsizing office space and, using the punchline 'no salary increase this year but, you're saving on commuting costs". Companies need to consider how they handled COVID and the whole WFH. If they have been saving costs as mentioned above then they need to incentivise going back to work.

Many have built home offices at their own expense, moved homes and, on top of that the cost for living travel expenses has gone through the roof. If salaries have gone up in line with inflation then fair enough, but, if companies have used this period to their own cost advantage then they should be subsidising or increasing salaries.

Trouble is, there are excellent arguments in favour of WFH too. As you rightly say, commuting is a pain. But it's a whole lot less of a pain than it would be if you added in a whole crowd of extra commuters who would otherwise be at home.
WFH reduces traffic and pollution and overcrowding on transport, and we all benefit from that.
It also enables people with health conditions and care responsibilities to be economically active and gives a greater reach for people to find jobs. It improves work/life balance, and can lead to less productivity lost to sick days.
Personally I think all employers should weigh up these social and economic issues against whether the business really requires an office presence from all roles and offer WFH where possible.
If individual employees exploit it, that's going to be reflected in their performance and should be managed as a personal performance issue rather than a sweeping policy change.

I wouldn’t go back to the office full time without financial compensation. My employer has closed my local office, so commuting costs would be astronomical, and I’ve accepted below inflation pay rises over the last few years because I don’t have the expense of going to the office anymore

How very unreasonable of them not to pay. they'll expecting employees to do work for them next!

But if your employer wanted to get you back into the office they'd have to change your contract, at which point you'd negotiate on additional cost. The issue isn't around people with WFH contracts. It's those with office based ones who have had the benefit of being able to wfh. Their salaries already (in theory) cover cost of commute.

I had this conversation on repeat when we went back after Covid. No I don’t care that you moved out of the expensive city in lockdown and now have a longer commute. No I don’t care that you adopted a dog and didn’t think about how you’d manage while working. No I don’t care that it’s annoying to sit on a bus. Commuting time and cost is part of most people’s working life. I’m lucky that my workplace lets us WFH 1/2 days a week but I don’t expect them to care about where I live. That’s my choice.

If someone's contract was for working from home x days per week then the employer wants them in the office on those days, then I think its fair to ask

Ridiculous that you can't claim tax reduction on commuting costs in the UK- I commute 44km a day to work and get rebated 27 cents per kilometre which helps massively. But you can only claim for cheapest form of available transport, which makes sense to encourage using public transport (none when I'm travelling though so can claim car allowance)

In several European countries, it is common to receive a tax-free mileage allowance for commuting, calculated at a set rate per mile or kilometre between your home and office.

I agree that it is odd that in the UK you are just supposed to accept that you don't get this, given the low wages overall.

No employers should not pay people to go to work in the office.
Covid was the reason the whole WFH en masse happened. And after it people did not want tor return. Some companies sold off office space.
Some people WFH very well. Some do not do much work whatsoever.
Commuting is a pain. The issue is as someone’s very good thread says work is a social construct. There are benefits to being together face to face in person.

The issue for WFH is that you miss out on those, and that those who exploit it and do not work as they should become harder to manage.
Once that changes it might settle down.

I guess at around the same time they've decided to move the goal posts on an employees work practices and create a new condition that creates extra expenses in order for them to do their job.
As PP said, if they had issued contracts that required office work then it's not their responsibility. But if the employee has a hybrid or home based contract, then there's a good argument to be made.
In a cost of living crisis, an employer who makes their employees poorer, even if they're legally entitled to, runs the risk if losing staff to a more flexible employer.

Why is an increase in employee rights a bad thing?!

Oh don’t be so ignorant - UK plc is powered by services. You know, the kind that dick about with spreadsheets and imaginary work.

I seem to be in the minority YANBU but people on mumsnet do love to wank off the capitalist machine.

If you can do your job effectively from home then commuting is a pay cut - current fuel prices are disgusting and our rail system is a disgrace.

I get it depends how hung up one is on staying employed.

Enlightenment with an employee. Since covid has gone through the roof it is honestly impossible for organisations to manage
I'm glad to see that the majority on the pole have said you are unreasonable
The cost of your commute is yours just in the same way the cost of the clothes you wear at work and the food you eat at work is yours.
When you accept a job at a particular location you accept that you have to do that commute and you'll have to pay for that commute. Post covid, those principles haven't changed anyone who accepts a job expecting that they wouldn't need to go into the office regularly when contacted at a particular office was naive. We were always going to return to some semblance of normality around workplace expectations it's actually taken longer than I thought it would.

Since Covid the UK has not thrived.
It’s not bounced back like other countries have.
There have been a huge increase in employee entitlement (personal), employee rights (govt led), employment costs (tax), benefit claiming etc
The UK is really not a great place to operate a business from.
If things carry on, there will be significantly less private sector jobs in the UK.
Less jobs / businesses equals less tax to fund the public sector.

So it’s ok that I demand more and more flexibility from my employer - it’s good for my work /life balance and funds my lifestyle but I must remind myself that for the next generation, things will be very very different.

…… and that’s without the impact of AI!

I agree about it being raised as an issue with the rail companies.

When I was part time, I had to pay for full price rail tickets. Being able to purchase a three travel days per week season ticket would have helped with the cost and saved the hassle of purchasing an ticket each day.