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

Are you writing an article or something? Why haven’t you returned to the thread OP nor given your own view on the subject?

Ok, I am related to a Barclays worker who was employed with a contract that requires them to be in the office 2 days a week.

This office can be ANY Barclays office, so they go into the local Barclays bank - they actually go in 5 days a week because it's cheaper than putting their own heating on (winter) and it's air conditioned. Plus, they can cycle there.

Their work doesn't need them to interact in person with anyone on a day to day basis. If they need to attend a meeting in head office, they get their travel costs reimbursed.

Now, they've been asked to go into London 3 days a week. 3 hours per day extra travelling, extra costs and loss of family life.

You bet they're holding out for renegotiation of their contract!

If people refuse to go into the office it’s likely companies will speed up AI adoption and off shoring.

Actually… Mileage reimbursements and allowances are not taxable in the UK as long as they stay at or below the official tax-free limits set by HMRC.

Many of us wfh and claim mileage when we have to go into an office.

Nope, the only thing that matters is the terms and conditions. If I go to the office, I can claim mileage expenses. Very normal in my admin role.

With AI around the corner, its Boss "Jump", Employee "How high, Boss". Just get there.

No, the employer should not pay travel costs. They are the employee's responsibility. Also, if employers did pay (as with cars) then it is a benefit in kind and would be taxable.

In normal jobs it is the employee's responsibility to get themselves to work

If your contract says you're based at home that's a different matter.

But I don't think that's what these contracts say is it.

One side says more office days is effectively a pay cut. The other says getting to work has always been the employee's cost.

I think both are true, Traditionally it was up,to the employees to get themselves to work but things have changed. Before Covid my employers were emphatic that the job could not be done remotely but within weeks - amazing! They found not only that it could be done but that it worked well.

But they key point was that they could now hire people from all around the country, We had had people before who lived far away filling posts, but they had to make extraordinary efforts to travel and stay for part of the week near the office.

So changing back to requiring people to be in more would change the basis on which people were hired. But I should add that it’s quite pressured and responsible work where it’s not possible to pretend to work: failures would be public and accountable.

Funnily enough the employers are reducing office space, too, to save costs.

This is the most Gen Z thing I’ve ever heard. Have you forgotten about how everyone was expected in the office 5 days a week? Pre-covid? We just paid and went to work and did our jobs…imagine!

I don’t live in London that’s the problem - I live out in the suburbs because I can’t afford to live in London.

i was born and bred in an area in zone 5 and had to move 30 miles away to somewhere affordable. There are no jobs near me that pay anywhere near my London salary

COVID really spoiled office workers then...

I've no idea why you quoted me and then answered a question I didn't ask about people moving jobs.
Regardless, post-covid if your contract is hybrid without specifying the number of office days, you made your choice - suck it up. My contract switched to hybrid as has changed from 'come in if you want' to 'come in 2 days' to 'our target is 3 days'. My salary didn't reduce at any point so why would I have any expectation of it increasing as the number of office days does.
If the terms don't suit you, find a role with terms that do.
What next, employer has to pay for my meal because lunch is in the middle of my working day?

But you said it wasn’t true that it’s taxable and it can be tax exempt on the employer.

It was true.

It is tax deductible for the employer, but subject to employer NIC and taxable on the employee.

They don’t just chip in, they cover the full cost. With the thing they call your salary.

Unless you have a fully remote contract then surely it's the employees' responsibility to pay for their commuting. That's how it's been for a very ling time, and this seems like an excuse to get bosses to stop asking them to go into the office. Many of those 'working' from home are just taking the piss. No wonder everything's going down the pan, god forbid work interferes with your 'commitments' during your contracted working hours.

Mine does, but it was negotiated before I started.

In the Netherlands employers often cover your travel to work through providing a train pass, a lease car or an allowance to cover it. Apparently it is expected and seen as the employer’s responsibility

Some of us had/have jobs that aren’t compatible with wfh. I’m a community nurse so I drive to and from work at my own expense and in my own time (a bit like teachers do for example)
the only mileage and time I am reimbursed for is travel to see patients during my working day after arrival at the base.
however I think that my job is one of the least likely to be taken over by AI so that is a bonus I guess.

Back in the day it was not uncommon for employers to offer interest free annual season ticket loans as part of the remuneration package, maybe they could bring something like that back?

It is comparable. It's normal for people all across the country to go into work 5 days a week.

Unless someone is disabled and/or has a medical condition which means that they need to be accomodated, then it is absolutely reasonable to expect people doing fake "finance" jobs to go into the office 5 days a week.

It’s coming up 7 years since WFH started due to Covid and loads of people are in different jobs than they were before. Employers hired people knowing that they didn’t live near the office, this widened the talent pool and gave more flexibility on both sides. I had two jobs between the start of Covid lockdowns and retirement this summer. In the first one I hired a team, and the organisation didn’t care where in the country they were located. This impacted on the salaries we had to offer. The second employer knew where I lived when they hired me, and we agreed how often I’d be in. This impacted on the salary I was prepared to accept. For many people hired during Covid the lack of commuting costs was definitely factored in. Had I not retired I couldn’t have stayed in my job as my employer had mandated 4 days in the office which would have been impossible at 5 hrs round trip and £160 a day.

Id be interested to know how majy of these people were FT office based pre covid?

Did their wage stay the same when they went to wfh? If they are arguing commuting should be paid then surely they should take wage cut if they moved to wfh

All these people are doing is making the case for offshoring more jobs to India.

Where are you living in London that costs £50 a day to commute within London? I commute for an hour and my travel costs cap out at £8.90 with a combination of bus, train and tube.