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.

Curious to know for those people saying to go back to office they would need a pay rise did you take a pay cut when you started working from home? Covid drove a lot of working from home understandably but I know a lot of youngsters going into the workforce from uni which is a very sociable environment and they are struggling as they do not have a lot of people around them to learn from, mentor them etc. It just feels like we have gone from one extreme to the other and need to find a middle ground somewhere.

I feel pretty much the same.

I have a really interesting, fulfilling work life. I’m a mother, and a wife. I’ve never had the option of WFH, except for periods during Covid, but I’ve never missed it.

No pay cut for me and I’m not sure how my company could have justified it given it came about (for us) because of covid. However, the company has closed multiple offices and made a significant profit since, but that’s also not been reflected in our pay.

I love wfh but I know it’s not for everyone. I’m lucky to have the office space at home but for plenty of people some wfh has been enforced and the equipment takes over their living area with poor/non existent DSE in place to look after their physical well-being.

Well WFH isn't a given anymore. Not that it ever was, outside of Covid. It is therefore a 'perk', which, if non-existent has to be compensated for via other means, depending on how the company operates!

Why do you think on-site workers for a, say London or other city centre firm who have higher transport, rent etc should be paid the same as their remote counterparts?

If it becomes the norm then no bad thing, as long as no-one has any salary reduction for whatever they do now.

I wouldn't take it, but am not financially stretched and some people would do this for extra money.

Well a company doesn't have to reduce salary. They could make everyone come in and discipline them otherwise. There's no point in recruiting new staff 'on-site' but having all their colleagues WFH.

It really depends on the nature of the job IMO.

I can't WFH, even through Covid I had to go in and on min wage (I'm qualified far higher than that but it suits me to be doing this right now!).

If the job is the 1 you want to do and you are happy to commute in, then go for it.

I don't like WFH and I don't choose to, but sometimes it is useful to have the option, ie leaving early for a school thing and logging back on, or because the boiler is being serviced. So I'd take it as long as I still had a small amount of flexibility and wasn't going to have to book holiday for stuff like the examples above. This assumes it is the kind of role that can be done from home, rather than something like a supermarket worker or a surgeon!

Essentially we had a pay cut in the form of no pay rise/bonus in 2020 at the same time as having to buy equipment to work from home - desks, chairs, monitors etc. Because of inflation, we were poorer and also had to spend money to be able to WFH. I didn't mind that as I saw it as an investment in being able to WFH. Now my salary covers living expenses but there is no money left to cover the cost of commuting if asked to go back to the office full time (luckily my work won't be doing that as they recognise that we're more productive working from home).

When I was offered a new job I negotiated more money because they wanted me in a hybrid role when previously I was WFH. There was more costs involved with commuting so that was reason enough!

Seems fair enough to me. Salaries always kind of set themselves in the market to take account of longer hours/longer London commutes etc, then when lockdown happened those people banked the savings while getting none of the downsides any more. For things to even back out, non-flexible jobs requiring a commute will pay more, and if people want the higher salary they can take on the downsides once again.

The middle ground is the fact that fully/overwhelmingly remote roles are now reasonably common, and they exist in addition to lots of jobs that have to be done in person. It only feels like things have gone too far the other way because you were so used to in person work being the norm. There are still lots of roles that can only be done in person, in addition to those that could be remote but aren't.

I got a significant pay rise when I started to work remotely, but in any case what difference do you think that makes? People's views about what terms and conditions are acceptable to them are based on job markets now, not at some point in the past.

This is such a good point - people's views on the conditions that are acceptable to them are based on the job market now.

I think too many people are basing their opinions of prospective jobs on a job market that existed 4+ years ago. The reality is I shouldn't have to justify needing a pay rise to work in person, the job market is such that there are plenty of WFH jobs available in my industry.

Thanks!

It's just plain fact that things have changed a lot in the 2020s. Employers and employees are both likely to respond to that. There are some employers who are still fishing in the 2019 pond of course, there'll always be places that are prestigious and oversubcribed. But there are lots of workers who are now in a position to insist on remote or at least hybrid.

Not just at the more highly paid end either. There are regular threads on here complaining about customer service and call centre staff still wfh, and seldom do the people bemoaning it understand that they can't simply be made to go back in. Yet the same people would probably understand that if you go to a supermarket and expect to pay the same for your groceries as you did in 2019, you're going to be disappointed.

I’d be in the office 5x a week for free 🤣 Hate WFH!

People bemoaning bad customer service from call centre staff are also likely to be filling in all those feedback emails. Presumably of enough poor feedback is received the employer will act on it. Now while I agree they probably can't be forced back in they can hopefully be required to improve their performance such that callers have nothing to complain about.

Depends on what actions the employer can realistically take, I suppose. They can only manage and recruit from what's there.

WFH is the most positive change to work life balance imaginable.

I’m in a very highly paid role and do almost 100% WFH.

I negotiated this change because it suited me and I knew the business wouldn’t want to lose me. They even let me keep my 12k car allowance.

I can honestly say it has transformed my life. I can now fulfil the requirements of my role and personal life simultaneously without ever feeling over committed. It will mean I can continue working for a lot longer than might have been the case had I had to go into the office every day.

Without WFH it would have been an almost impossible task for DH, who also WFH, and I to both work FT and handle the requirements of looking after our DS when he starts school as we have zero family support.

I might be wrong but in this case it sounds like this role is different to the roles that can be done flexibly.

You are going to get the same in may work places - a surgical nurse can't WFH the vast majority of time but an administrator may be able to.

In time as we go through the waves of population employment rates the jobs will find a pay level that accounts for this. If you have a job that needs someone to be on site then if most people want to WFH then you will need to pay more than a WFH job. If most people would rather be on site then you won't.

Discrimination cases may come in if a job could be done from home but not if it is part of the business needs for it to be on site.

I think that would be fair. We are losing staff constantly as they can apply for different roles in the department which are wfh for the same pay. It is a bone of contention.

It depends. How much is left over net after you deduct commute and other office expenses? Would you really save money on costs at home?

And - how much stress is the commute?

I find the commute on my in-office days draining, especially in winter so no amount of money would really compensate me for this. I love my wfh days too much and the energy I have for my private life is a lot better on these days.

I think this undoubted phenomenon is the reason why we'll see more roles attract a premium for being in person in the future. It is a potential minefield in relation to flexible working, reasonable adjustments etc though, I can see that.

Organisations would not be sensible to try this with any role that didn't have a very strong case for only being suitable to be done in person, however. OP mentions that this job has to be in person because it involves working with someone who's on site. Makes me wonder, is it just about that person's preference or something more? If it's something like eg a PA role, does that raise the question of how far the person who's getting assisted gets to set the terms?

This!

WFH saves the company money as it means less overheads for them (smaller office etc). I’d expect the salary to be the same. If they want you, you should negotiate.
is there a reason why it doesn't allow flexibility (eg confidentiality reasons dealing with customers data or working with a team in a different time zone) or it is just the boss of the department being closed-minded?

I would do the maths first - work out how much your commute would cost, plus how many hours it eats out of your week, and whether the extra hours would mean you need longer childcare, a cleaner, dog walker etc - and factor those in too. What, in real terms, is the financial benefit and does it outweigh the extra hours?

If you wfh 9-5 but the office-based job means leaving at 7.30 to drop DC at a childminder so you can commute for an hour then the reverse on the way home - it would have to be a hell of an increase for me, for that to be worthwhile.