Why are (some) people so against WFH?

[thistimenextyearwellbemillionaires]

I see so many threads on here about why people shouldn't be able to WFH and I don't really understand why people would be against it

For most people it seems make sense with their home life & financially as saving on commuting costs. When my children were young I was 5 days in the office and had to rush back from town to collect them and it was so stressful, it must be great for people not to have to do that now.

I know some people might take the piss a bit, but this happened when people were in the office full time too, there would always be someone always in late, leaving early etc.

I am lucky that my company is hybrid and no plans to change that. I've been offered another role recently which was a big pay rise but 5 days in the office and have decided to stay where I am. Where I work, whether you're in the office or at home you're expected to produce the same work and results and if you don't you'd be out so they're no slouch in terms of expectations of their employees.

Interested to know people's honest opinions.

This might be one of the wankiest things I’ve ever read 😂
I have teens. I also worked in the internet before you HAD home internet. I managed social media before it was called social media..and “hot-desking” was the big new thing in the 90’s!
Just because a tool exists doesn’t mean you need to use it. All tools should be considered with a discerning eye.
And just because someone is over 40 doesn’t mean they don’t understand technology!

"Socially conservative" means you have some conservative values but you don't necessarily vote for the Conservative party (i.e. "politically conservative"). Literally, you skew towards conserving more traditional values in society.

No, I don't know what that's got to do with using Asana either!

I think there are pros and cons. Often hybrid seems to work well for a lot of people and wfh can be more flexible with childcare arrangements.
However I've seen on MN and elsewhere , where people have either got used to, or arranged their life around ft wfh , but originally went into an office, possibly moving further away, and then seem to think it's an enormous affront to be asked to do eg 1 day a week in the office.

Do you think that all these 'quite old' people are working in special offices that time forgot, tapping away on their Olivettis, agog at the modern marvel that is the fax machine, and writing pink memos for more tippex from the stationary cupboard? Because however old you 'skew', if you've a job you'll be working with contemporary systems. In fact, given the older you are the more authority you may have, you may even have been responsible for their implementation.

I do see why many like it for the flexibility - particularly those with younger kids or long commutes , however in many organisations I deal with privately and in business I have seen standards dropping and things that took 2 weeks to sort can now take 5. I also think even if you have loads of teams meetings or zoom etc it can still for many not really make you feel part of 'something' in a way that being in an office can - however because of the prevalence of hybrid or WFH - even those in offices can feel it feels a bit pointless when 5 people out of a team of 20 are in- I have found the issues tend to be where there really isn't any way to monitor work being done , mainly with those who have been in the workforce less than 10 years and not in more senior roles. Our parent company doesn't encourage WFH for more than 1 day per week unless you have worked for them for more than 3 years and/or are relatively senior with a proven delivery record - but they are very open about this when they interview.

My DH got a new very nice job. They said (after a few months when he reflected over the age of the people working there) they never hire any under 50, as they need people who have years of experience and basically are not flaky and have the ability to talk to people.

DH has worked all over the world and met so many people over the years, he can do business with anyone and in any culture. It’s becoming a problem now that so many people wfh and lack these social skills. So some companies refuse to do business with people they can’t talk to and have asked to swap certain persons. Which means DH now is doing very well.

There's a great deal to be said for having experience of working in different ways. Us 'quite old' people are often pretty adaptable in that regard, because you reach a point where most ways you're asked to work in, you have done before. Most of us manage to combine this with being sufficiently open minded to embrace new methods too. Who knew!? Glad to hear your DH is doing well and that his employers recognise what he has to offer.

Completely agree with pps who cite the corporate bootlicking mentality. It’s rife on here. Wfh attracts a lot of attention, but actually you see it on any thread where someone is question working conditions.

’If you don’t like it, find another job.’ Never said in the positive sense of actually encouraging someone to seek better opportunities, of course, but with the implication that you’re bloody lucky to have a job, so get on with it because the big boss calls the shots.

There was a thread a year or two ago with someone who ran an estate agency getting pushback from employees who didn’t want to wear branded clothing iirc. Some posters questioned why EAs needed to do this and why the op was so set on forcing staff to do something they weren’t happy with, but there was a deluge of the usual ‘if they don’t like it, tell them they can leave and get people who’ll be grateful for a job.’

It comes across as gleeful to me. Like they’re rubbing their hands at the thought of someone being taken down a peg or two.

Question. Employees, beavering away at home invisible to higher management. How do you get promotion when you're a payroll number?

My DH got a new very nice job. They said (after a few months when he reflected over the age of the people working there) they never hire any under 50, as they need people who have years of experience and basically are not flaky and have the ability to talk to people.

That’s awful. Leaving aside the legality, it’s ridiculous to tar any age group or generation with one reputation. Slackers have existed throughout time. Some older workers are fantastic resources for sharing experience and knowledge - others sit about moaning and coasting. Some young people are positive and keen to get on - others are flaky and immature.

Also utterly ridiculous to lump 45-year-olds in with 16-year-olds. Even if you need experienced staff and not someone who’s just out of education, it doesn’t take decades to learn how to do a job well.

I've noticed this as well. It's interesting because in my sector there's a definite labour shortage and as a result its very much an employees market. Changes to employment law will shift the balance of power further in the employees direction. I think many might find the days of forelock tugging yes boss-ing are numbered, and if companies want to recruit and retain the best people they have to accept they no longer hold all the cards. You're right about the glee too. Its just the right word for it.

I have just as much social interaction wfh as I did in the office. In fact more, because instead of commuting I walk the door in our local park, and have got to know lots of other regulars (some were regulars pre-covid, others wfh since 2020). As we are all local many of us have ended up seeing each other socially at weekends etc, we're having Xmas drinks in a couple of weeks, we help each other out with odd jobs, dog care, lifts to the big supermarket for those without a car etc.

I start my working day having had an hour of company and conversation, and a good 70-80% of my 10,000 steps per day! Instead of having spent an hour ignoring the strangers I am packed into the Tube with.

Plus I do voluntary work at weekends, because I have more energy without spending 10-12 hours a week commuting.

Yes, some people bury themselves and never emerge, but it isn't compulsory.

My DH got a new very nice job. They said (after a few months when he reflected over the age of the people working there) they never hire any under 50, as they need people who have years of experience and basically are not flaky and have the ability to talk to people.

So they're openly admitting to age discrimination? Hmm.

In my opinion, in my company at least, WFH makes this fairer because you're very much judged on the results you've achieved - rather than just being the loudest person in the room.

My company also has a very 'open door' policy - you can set up a virtual coffee chat (25 mins to catch up/ask advice) with anyone of any level in the company, and management often set these chats up with junior employees who are not direct reports to keep channels open.

Obviously not all companies work like this - but it works well with us.

By being good at your job surely🤔

If your management aren't competent to assess the quality of work, but rely on you cosying up in the office it doesn't say much for the company's standards.

Why the need to monitor work? And why aren't junior staff given the same working arrangements? What has seniority got to do with whether someone can work from home?

I'm glad we've moved on from the attitude that junior staff can't be trusted because that view is patronising.

Wfh doesn’t mean invisible. Nor does it necessarily mean you never leave the house.

Even without making yourself visible by online interactions, many home-based workers travel. I have a colleague who has only set foot in our office to collect her laptop, but travels internationally regularly and who is always available for a call when needed. I know her far better than people who sit a few desks away from me that I don’t interact with and she is the most senior person I interact with.

Yes, some people bury themselves and never emerge, but it isn't compulsory

I agree in that I work from home several days a week and am still sociable, because I'm a sociable person who doesn't mind going out to find other sociable people. Many people aren't like that, social spaces have disappeared, so the local church, youth club, even big parties are out of fashion. People are getting out the habit of being social, including with people they aren't great friends with, which is fine if you are a sociable more established person with the confidence to go out and make new friends WFH but mumsnet is full of women trapped at home, very few or no friends, and feeling isolated wondering where it all went wrong. I love WFH as it works for me, but I don't think reduced social contact and 5 day a week WFH is a good thing overall in an already highly individualistic and isolating Western society.

Yes, also it saves the public sector money/ everyone's taxes because you no longer need office space. I am not public sector btw, but this makes absolutely no sense.

@XxSideshowAuntSallyx why monitor work at all if that's the case? Because if people are being paid either company or public money they aren't being paid to produce next to zilch whilst they pop into town, walk the dog, visit their friend , - to be frank I have no issue if the work gets done and at times that suit everyone else , I want people contactable at certain times, I don't want a deluge of emails at 11.45pm that needed answering earlier in the day - but often it doesn't- I'm just saying what my experience is with 'many' younger less committed colleagues

I'm all for a fair amount of flexibility but if you are the one paying people then I don't see that the narrative should all be with the home worker doing what they want when it suits them either -

I'm higher management. My staff beavering away at home are not invisible to me. They are highly visible by way of their performance. I know exactly who is ready for the next stage by assessing them on the things that matter. Whether they ask me if I've had a good weekend when we meet at the photocopier or laugh at my jokes in the kitchen is entirely irrelevant to their prospects.

I'm not against people WFH at all. It wouldn't suit me personally, I tried it when I was freelance and didn't like it.

What I do dislike though, is people who normally used to go out to work and who have now been accustomed to WFH during lockdown and ever since, who then kick up a grand song and dance and are royally miffed when their employer says actually, we want you back in the office now.

There have always been some WFH jibs. I grew up on a farm, so we lived on the job. Dad was often out in the fields or the dairy or grain dryer, but all the paperwork and phone calls were done from home. There have always been people doing piecework, too.

I work in IT. I've been able to work from home since the late '90s, as I've had to cover on-call. I usually didn't, but sometimes took the opportunity if I had a piece of work I really needed to focus on without people interrupting me at my desk. There are people who take the piss, but there are also people who take the piss in an office. Stuff like putting on a load of washing shouldn't be an issue. It doesn't always mean you're not working - I've had ideas about work problems away from my desk, and that's probably partly because I was away from my desk. Doing something else let my brain work on it in the background without me forcing things in a particular direction like I did when actively thinking about it.

I had colleagues all over the world, so we always had lots of conf calls and video calls, and if they're not physically there, it makes no difference if they're in an office or at home. Some had home-working contracts. Hybrid worked well for me. I live alone, so permanently WFH meant I could go days without seeing people if I didn't make myself go to the corner shop or the swimming pool etc.

I'm about to start a new job. It's fully in the office because of security requirements, but it's also walking distance from home, so I don't mind (and also fewer hours and more money.)

What makes a difference is the quality of the manager. Some are far better than others at managing remotely. Some are much more out of sight, out of mind, but good ones are aware that remote management has some different skills from being all physically located together, and will take action to check in with people, make sure there are good opportunities for people to work together, and to allow cross-pollination of ideas and knowledge.

It doesn't work for all roles, nor for all people,nor at all life stages. But in roles where it can work, good managers will find ways of managing it. Poor ones will focus on presenteeism and micromanagement - which is much the same whether everyone's remote or together in an office.

Doesn't that depend on the circumstances?

Lockdown #1 was all but five years ago. WFH has been fine ever since and, even if not explicitly so has been normalised by custom and practice. In that case employees who are suddenly told they have to commute and be in the office two or three days a week are entitled to be miffed.

The previous administration decided by Ministerial dictat that Civil Servants should be at least hybrid and in the office on a frequent and regular basis.

That's a decision that should be left to managers responsible for delivering the service.

I totally agree, and my employer has a similar arrangement. Its the best of both worlds.