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

In a few cases that probably is the case.

I'd say 80% of cases are about getting rid of people they'd rather not have (disabled, women, carers, people with health conditions, people with interests outside work).

I think some people thought WFH would last forever and made decisions based on that. People moved to the coast or the countryside, used their previous commuting costs for a larger mortgage, had offices at home built, got used to the extra money and then were shocked when there was a return to the office policy.

My commute isn't that far but it still takes a while if I hit traffic. I do much more at home and even prior to COVID my team were only in one day a week.

I do wonder though about this move back to the office being more about taking something off people they like, control and presenteeism rather than collaborating and delivery.

In my experience average of 3 days a week in the office is necessary to ensure effective working. Below that does not work effectively in the long run. Work may get done but the extra stuff needed for progression and growth (individual and company level) ultimately gets missed.

Some people get way more done at home but lots don’t. Or they get things done at home but potentially not in the best way or things get missed as they don’t just ask the questions that are easy if sitting across from someone but harder if needing to initiate a call

The problem with this approach, is the pitch has already been queered by the greedy numbnuts who immediate say WFH as an excuse to whine about £2 a day increased domestic bills, whilst overlooking the £50/week pay rise they were getting by not having to commute (and that is ignoring the 10-20 hours a week they also gained).

(Plus all those who mistakenly thought they were "working from home" despite their contracts saying otherwise).

They already do. It is called your salary.

As with all things, it’s the people who take advantage that ruin it for the rest of us

eg people who think wfh means they don’t need to pay for childcare.

and employment law makes it very difficult to get rid of the people swinging the lead

not every company is taking in massive profits and there are a lot of belts that need tightening. The UK is not the honeypot it once was

I think it depends on what the arrangements were when they started working there. If they started work with the agreement that there would be 2 office days they may not have budgeted for an additional days commute, so it is effectively a pay cut and additional travel hours to what they initially agreed to.

You have "agreements" and you have contracts.

A lot of "WFH" contracts aren't They explicitly make the place of work the office and that is that. Any deviation is (generally) up to the employers discretion, subject to usual employment law.

All my WFH jobs have stated my place of work is home address. (Which meant my travel into any office was paid for).

I had to setup a load of WFH infrastructure back in 2010 when my company was absorbed into it's parent. That was a lot of time with non tech people that I will never get back. But I remember the discussions ....

That's for when you are travelling on business - eg to appointments to meet with clients or to attend work training courses. If your employer is paying you HMRC milage rates for your regular office commute they might find themselves with an expensive tax bill.

Which studies?

Unless your contract is fully remote then no they don't need to pay you to get to work.
This is part of having a job

If your place of work is your home, then commutes to an office are claimable.

My first true WFH role saw me go to Eastleigh, Gloucester, Stoke, Bournmouth, Glasgow and Brussels as well as London .... every mile paid for at 40p ....

Also this recent study says the opposite!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07500-2

I'd be wary of studies.

Very few companies had any idea on their productivity anyway.

I worked for 3 companies after COVID who admitted they had no idea what effect staff WFH had on their efficiency.

The real giveaway was the number of outfits who had insisted that they couldn't support WFH that were begging staff to WFH during COVID and who - mysteriously - did not go bust.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy to gaslight us as a nation. But you have to ask yourself what they will do when the next pandemic happens ?

Working with others, seeing how they do things and getting feedback can all be done remotely. A vast quantity of tech jobs are outsourced from the UK to India. I am part of a team of 50, 40 are located elsewhere in the UK. All 50 of us are supported by an IT team in India.

it might require more structured and planning to manage a remote team - but then that is what senior management are paid for.

My issue is the other way round. I am effectively renting my garage out to a very well known huge business, but can't charge them rent to operate their business from inside my property. Meanwhile my electricity and WiFi is used to run 3 computers and a phone, plus heating and water are used alongside bathroom and kitchen facilities in a house that would ordinarily be empty at that time. They do not have to provide or maintain accommodation up to the required standard or pay for the workspace to be cleaned like they would at the office but the employees are often working in poorer conditions than employers are obliged to provide if at home. They are saving a lot by not having to provide work accommodation, heating, no wear and tear, over those shifts. I should be able to submit an expenses claim for my electricity and general wear and tear. I'm not their employee but that business is effectively conducted from my house. I don't have that amenity while their employee is using it. Commuting cost saved is negligible.

I don’t think you should received commuting costs at all. It’s on you to pay to get to your place of work unless you are employed on a totally work from home basis.

Why are people living so far from work that they can't afford to get into work? I'm assuming the jobs are in London and people can't afford to live there? If that is the case the companies should relocate to places where people can afford to live so they can get staff or, yes they should provide a season ticket as part of the pay deal.

No one's boss pays their employees travel expenses into work.

Our finances are our responsibility. Dont know why a business cares about our commuting costs

Wasn't that long ago all days were office days and no one had this level of cheek

Why are people living so far from work that they can't afford to get into work?

Well if the price of fuel has raced ahead of inflation then even thought the distance hasn't changed, the cost has.

But for the increase in petrol costs to have made getting into work unaffordable they must live really far away, not in the same city as the job. Really the reasons why people are living so far away need sorting imo. I know loads of people can't afford to live near jobs in London for example, so wages should increase to mean they can afford to live near their jobs or if companies can't get staff then they should spread their offices out around the country.

Must be a joke question!

YABU, getting to work is your responsibility.