No WFH but extra salary?

[joylessdivision]

Just curious as to your thoughts on this?

There was a vacancy in my company that I was interested in purely for a change but the job titles are basically the same, just working for different departments.

Our company has a flexible working policy (not contractual) and this role is quite a bit higher in salary on account of no flexible working.

Is this something that is becoming more common? I think there is potential for issues here down the line.

I guess too the higher salary may be more attractive for youngsters needing multiples of salary for mortgage borrowing. It depends at what stage you are in life and what suits individual lifestyles

This is how I look at it too, except I also factor in the cost of buying office clothes and shoes, and takeaways/junk food on the days I'd be too tired to cook.

Some good points.

I too just wonder how this works in terms of fairness, as PP have pointed out - how to they handle flexible working requests? Or what happens if someone doesn't like WFH, and comes to the office every day but they do not get extra money as its just something that is being aimed to recruit?

I didn't go for the role because personally, I value flexibility more than money (its about £10K a year more!). Major city in a nice office.

My commute costs about £2.50 a day (20 mins each way) and there aren't any other added costs to going into the office (I wear the same clothes as I would at home, always take packed lunch). As we get free tea and coffee there that's a few pence a day saved too. If it was flexible hours in those circumstances I'd definitely go for it.

I know we have had issues recruiting in our industry because everyone wants flex working now.

I can also imagine its quite shit to sit in an office five days a week and watch colleagues bugger off at 4 or come in at 11 etc! So I do wonder how long it will be before it becomes a problem for whoever they put in the role anyway......

Hmm, I think this is a difficult one.

I WfH full time under an OH recommendation as a reasonable adjustment for a disability. The OH report specifically pointed out that in their opinion I would be considered disabled and have protection from discrimination in law.

So offering a higher salary for the same job that I would not be able to achieve purely because of my disability would be direct discrimination, no? And since many disabled people WfH as a reasonable adjustment (in my workplace it's strongly encouraged to have an OH assessment rather than just having local arrangements), offering more money for not WfH would be indirect discrimination against the disabled, wouldn't it, since disabled people are more likely to WfH?

So I think that an employer who offers more money to not WfH as a policy is likely to be putting themselves in danger of being sued for discrimination.

I guess a way around it would be to directly cover travel costs and travel time up to a capped limit (with that option open to everyone), but it would be massively expensive for a employer to suddenly start paying for every employees commute.

I would always consider this:

• How long is the commute? This would impact on how much of the salary increase would have to be spent on commuting costs and if the commute is really long I would ask myself about the effect on my health
• Am I happy to lose some of the free time that not having to commute gives me.

Basically it is not all about money and for me flexibility is more important than anything else.

I think there is an issue as well with people being offered higher salaries to be in the office everyday because it puts some people at a disadvantaged: people with disabilities/long term health conditions, cares, single parents and so on.

I have health issues and for me working from home means I can stay in the workplace and look after myself without claiming benefits.

I would see it as discrimination if I could not apply for an internal promotion for example because I require reasonable adjustments...

Issue is that more and more people are using and abusing WFH. There are threads almost every day questioning whether they can WFH and look after a toddler, would anyone notice etc. School runs where after 1500 people are just declining Zoom calls and are NEVER around. Sadly these are almost always women. Yes you could track them but its easy enough to appear to be around. There are a number of people who put themselves on DND on Skype and goodness knows what they are doing.

Do you think if productivty was increasing employers wouldnt be embracing and encouraging it?

makes perfect sense. Employer who wants someone in the office is prepared to pay more for the inconvenience of no wfh. Why on earth would that be an issue? It actually sounds like a fair way of doing it. If you are applying for a job you can pick what’s most important to you - more cash or more flexibility.

The OP has not specified why it is not flexible, if there are solid business reasons why it cannot be done from home with flexible hours then it wouldn't be a reasonable adjustment to allow those things. OTOH if its just down to a preference of the management then yes they could be open to claims of discrimination.

Depends when they mean by flexible as a lot of people like (and save money) with the flexibility of being about to WFH rather than be in the office but it’s not a dealbreaker. However, not being able to have the flexibility to work longer hours on day and have a couple of hours off for a school event the next day might be.

But some people, for example disabled people, don't have the luxury of "picking" cash v flexibility.

Is it reasonable to pay disabled people a lower rate than their able bodied counterparts because of their disability? Thankfully, the law says no it's not.

It would surely be illegal to pay WfH staff (who are more likely to be disabled) a lower rate than in office staff, in the same way it's illegal to pay part time workers (who are more likely to be women) a lower rate than full time workers. It would be a very clear cut case of indirect discrimination, and not "fair" at all!

Without it being too outing, this role has no flexibility as its based round working with someone else in person.

The company itself trusts people to do their job while working remotely - you are very much treated like an adult and they are always very supportive, especially of people with caring responsibilities. It seems to work - people dont take the piss because they arent micromanaged. Its a work based rather than hour based output. Very low turnover because of it.

My season ticket is 4.5k a year (less than 1 hr commute) I'm pretty sure I wouldn't spend that much on extra electricty at home if i wfh!

Which might be a reason for why it could not be done from home.

But if it is the same/similar level job to others which can be done from home it should not be paid at a higher pay rate than the equivalent level WfH position in exactly the same way that some jobs may not be able to be done part time,but the full time job cannot be paid at a higher rate than a part time job on the same level.

It is illegal to pay someone less either directly or indirectly because of their disability.

Seems reasonable, if compared to other roles that are WFH.

How is it reasonable to indirectly discriminate against disabled people and people with caring responsibilities (more likely to be women)?

Thankfully the Equality Act 2010 disagrees that it is reasonable, and offers protection.

No sorry i couldn't work in a job now that doesn't have flexibility or WFH. Life has a knack of throwing all sorts at a you and you need flexibility to deal with that whatever it is. People respect their employer's more if that have this, if they are given the trust and autonomist to do their job. The best thing to come out of covid was WFH, i didn't realise the impact commuting had on my body, my mental health how much time i got back in my day and the less exhaustion feeling was unreal. Life is too short and its not all about money sometimes

Yes, I'm coming from the opposite viewpoint, WFH was just about the worst thing about covid for me, I went fully back on site as soon as I could, no one works from home in our company (it isn't possible for most roles).

I do think this employer is in a dilemma, if they really do need a fully onsite fixed-hours person they are unlikely to attract good candidates at the same level of pay as the ones getting flexibility. But the discrimination issue is a possibility.

Someone who works from the office has additional costs - commuting, work wear etc - so I can see why they might be offered more. However, at my Dh’s firm, they sold office buildings during/after covid and now require staff to book desk space for the 60% of time they need to be in the office under the hybrid model - this means they are saving money by having people wfh as they oly need 60-75% of the office space/real estate.

Strikes me that if the job spec is the same, it should be advertised at the same salary - but that there should be separate WFT or travel allowances added to those salaries to address the differential?

Of course flexibility means a difference in salary. It's effectively a part of the package, like a company car.

WFH can absolutely save you money in commuting, it provides a flexibility you don't otherwise have etc.

We certainly take it into account when looking at salarys.

But you can't discriminate.

I WfH as a reasonable adjustment because of a disability. Is it reasonable to pay me less than people doing the same job as me, who are not disabled, and therefore are able to go into the office?

Thankfully I have protection under the Equalities Act 2010 and it is illegal to pay me less than my counterparts for reasons related to my disability.

Yes, I feel like that too.

Wfh is priceless for me.

It would cost me additional 4k a year to travel to the office. Yes, I would expect it to be reflected in my salary if I were looking for a different role. Not that the employer is obliged to offer me these terms but I certainly will be looking at salaries that are at least 8k higher (due to changes to tax and pension contribution brackets) than what I am earning now if I was considering a change of role that isn’t WFH.