Just had a rather interesting argument at work...

[YouSaffBridge]

We work for a pretty large firm, as part of a team of 10 people. Working from home is allowed within the firm - some more senior people do it when they want to, other people have negotiated it as part of their contract. IT etc is all set up to allow complete WFH.

WHF is not part of any of all of our team's contract but our manager is happy to allow it occasionally. One of us WHF one set day a week. Others do it occasionally. Reasons generally include standard things like waiting for large deliveries and workmen and attending doctors appointments. This has also included less urgent things like attending a child's school play, a vet appointment, and half day WHF when juggling caring for an ill child (i.e. both parents doing half days from home).

Our manager is fine with this. Our work couldn't be done all the time from home, but it can be done a lot. I imagine she sees it as part of treating her team like adults and acknowledging we all have lives as well.

At a team meeting this morning (without manager, which is probably relevant) one member of staff kicked off about it. They feel it is unfair that some people can just WHF with little notice. Their main issues as that they cannot, or do not need to, WHF. They don't have a laptop or PC at home they can work on, don't have any dependents that might need care (childcare, vets etc) and live in a rented property so don't need to stay in for tradesman. Individual concerned is very irate and even threw the word "discriminatory" into the conversation.

I can slightly see their point as some reasons for WHF are far less important or urgent than others (want to see your kids play? take a half day). However, when any of us ask to WHF, our manager could always say no if it is a problem - and does not. Most of the rest of the team operate on a "don't ask, don't get" mentality. There is no reason why this individual could not ask to WHF, or as IT if they can borrow a work laptop.

WIBU - is our team discriminatory, or are they U for complaining?

We have a similar ad hoc arrangement and it works okay too. Much smaller team though.

I think the issue is that the complainer thinks that "WFH" is actually "have a free day off".

I tend to get even more done on a WFH day as there is less distraction and I feel compelled to be at my laptop permanently in case anyone should contact me and assume I'm skiving if I don't respond within 30 seconds! We have instant message though and light by your name to show whether you are actively using your PC or not.

Tell him if he wants to buy a laptop or computer and ask to work from home occasionally 'just because', he can, too. There's nothing discriminatory about the policy. It's a perk of the company and the type of job you're all doing; his failure to avail himself of the option is about him, not discrimination.

It's only discriminatory if the disgruntled colleague is not allowed to WFH when are people are allowed to.
Whether he/she has children, pets, a property is irrelevant. The main point is that they could request it and it would be considered in line with everyone else's request.
I think they are being a PITA for the sake of it. Sounds like a case of empty vessels making the most noise :)

They probably have worked out what 'WFH' actually means and either resent the people with their feet up at home as they are diligent or resent them as they wish they were doing it.

The problem is that people are having to justify their reasons for working from home.
Either it works or it doesn't. If the IT set up means people can work as well, or nearly as well, at home, and the person can be trusted to be just as productive and get stuff done, their reason doesn't matter and they shouldn't have to give one.
When I WFH, I tell my team in advance that I'm WFH. I don't need to give any reasons why, although I might say 'but I'm not contactable from 11-12' if I have an appointment etc

If permission to WFH is only granted for a 'good enough' excuse/reason, and is seen as being a bit of a skive, then it suggests a cultural problem in the team.

Is there a perception that people aren't pulling their weight and doing the required amount of work/being contactable when WFH? If so, management needs to address it
Are those in the office left with extra work when someone is WFH? That needs to be addressed as well...

A good starting point would be some sort of policy, so everyone knows what the rules are wrt requesting a WFH day, and what, if any, the justifications are.

Lurking, we remote in. I don't know the techy stuff behind it but it's a sort of remote desktop malarkey

From a work-supplied machine, or a personal one ?

If it's personal. do you have a VPN in place ?

If the answers are "no" and "no" (or "no" and "what ?") then this debate at work is the least of your worries

It is discrimination if he doesn't own a laptop and work will not provide one thereby allowing him to work from home. But work will allow anyone who has a personal laptop to work from home.

Personally, I find it shocking you are allowed to use personal equipment to such regular extent for work. One nasty virus and IT will shut that policy down.

Why not have X amount of laptops in department to check out and use, if working from home? Then days need to be scheduled and they sided from true emergencies, when it's a matter of not working at all or working from home.

Sounds like two male staff that I worked with. They started complaining about certain staff not working weekends me. "It wasn't fair, they sheshould work weekends like us,...". They roped in another -shit stirrer-- staff member and the shit hit the fan. The manager ended up creating a rolling rota. You knew what shifts you worked for the next eight weeks and everyone worked four weekends withing the eight weeks. They were delighted and openly crowed about it.

Two other staff members came to me and asked if they could work my weekends, you get extra money. We ran it by the boss who had always said that she could change shifts if we approached her first. After some discussion the rota was changed which meant I only had to work one weekend and they got their extra money/weekends. Of course they went apeshit, until the boss finally told them that it was none of their business as it affected them in no way whatsoever.

Ironically the staff member, that sided with them at the meeting, then approached me and asked if I would let her work my weekend. I took great delight in telling her that I couldn't possibly as it might cause too much trouble with other staff. smile sweetly

There's always someone that feels they're getting hard done by. They don't want something but they don't want you to have it in case it makes you happy. He sounds like a spoilt, jealous brat.

So, basically they made themselves look ridiculous and became unpopular with everyone else in the space of about 15 minutes. Excellent work!

The lack of clear policy is the problem. And the reluctance of management to deal with senior colleagues who float in and out doing their own thing. If he's annoyed it's because it's not being dealt with. It shouldn't be someone awarded only to the pushiest, it should be a clear policy.

As for information security, I have a work laptop in my current job and could I think claim for a proportion of my broadband costs but never have. But in my previous job I used to log on using my own laptop. And even in this job I can access emails via my personal laptop and OWA.

My employer pays for separate broadband (thank goodness), and supplies a security-configured laptop. When I connect into work systems, I do so through a 2FA (I have a keyfob which generates a code) dedicated VPN which isolates the laptop from the internet. Anything less is a risk that some dodgy malware could get into our secure systems, and we end up facing a ransom demand from some Russian Bad Boys. (As Lincolnshire council found recently

OWA is just about OK, as long as attachments can't be downloaded.

It used to be that if IT security didn't inconvenience you, they were doing their job. Sadly, given the times we live in, I would say the reverse is true. If IT security isn't visible at some point in your day, there's something wrong.

If permission to WFH is only granted for a 'good enough' excuse/reason, and is seen as being a bit of a skive, then it suggests a cultural problem in the team. - it's more people only ask to WFH when they have a reason. Honestly, I don't think just saying "I want to WFH tomorrow" would be good enough. But there's no ranking of reasons - people just don't ask unless they need to be in their house for a reason.

Is there a perception that people aren't pulling their weight and doing the required amount of work/being contactable when WFH? - No, nothing that I have noticed when other people are WFH.

Are those in the office left with extra work when someone is WFH? Again, no - though regular WFH would create some issues as regards meetings and training, hence why at the moment it's just ad-hoc.

Re access, I don't understand the in's and out's (or what VPN is ) but in our sector security is paramount so it will be very secure and high-tech.

I think WFH is a great thing and there is nothing wrong with doctor/school play if you lose a lengthy commute, you are still quids in in terms of available hours to work.

My husband also finds that he doesn't get disturbed as often (though his phone still rings off the hook) with people dropping into his office for "just one quick thing" which can literally take up hours if you bunch them all together.

You could be in your study at 7am, probably later than you'd have to leave to get into the office if you have a commute, 2 quick breaks for a cup of tea and a sarnie and still be finished by half 3 having done better quality work than you might get in the office, depending on circumstances.

So even if you have a hoard of kids piling through the door after school disturbing you you have still done your days work.

Anyway that doesn't really answer the OP but just my 2 cents worth on working from home

Re access, I don't understand the in's and out's (or what VPN is grin) but in our sector security is paramount so it will be very secure and high-tech

Work-supplied machines, or personal ? If personal then - given you don't even recogniser "VPN" - I would challenge your assertion.

Lots of places are very "secure and high tech" right up to the point where they are hacked in a most spectacular way Talk Talk.

But, your circus, your monkeys.

But there's no ranking of reasons - people just don't ask unless they need to be in their house for a reason

If there needs to be a reason, that suggests that there is a downside to having people WFH and therefore it is a last-resort measure, rather than something that can be done for anything other than the most serious need.

So then you need to establish why. Is it lack of trust that people are working when they aren't being supervised, or that others have to work more to pick up the slack? Or that it just isn't possible to do all the work or do it as well? I suspect it is just a cultural unfamiliarity with it in your team, and that has lead to general suspicions about whether it is an excuse for a skive.

The logical step forward is draft up a policy setting out the circumstances and reasons someone can use to request WFH, how often, what the person needs to supply (broadband? Home phone? Own laptop?) vs what the company can supply (dongle? Laptop? Work mobile?) and under what circumstances the policy can be withdrawn.

People are then free to submit requests as per the policy, but no one can claim discrimination if all requests are authorised in line with the policy.
TBH, if you are part of a bigger company, it is quite likely that your HR department will already have something like this, or will be able to help pulling something together.
But it is probably worth a day of someone's time to get this sorted now, before it becomes a bigger headache because of perceived (or actual) unfairness

Work-supplied machines, or personal ? If personal then - given you don't even recogniser "VPN" - I would challenge your assertion

I happen to know what a VPN is, but when I work from home, either on my laptop or the work one, I go to a secure site which is 'remote.companyname.com' or click on the 'remote working' shortcut from my desktop

So it is entirely possible to use a totally secure remote environment without being familiar with the acronym...

I don't work in IT, though, why would I know what VPN stands for? You use a personal machine, go to a specific website and go through a three-stage login process with various passwords.

I mean, if they really have a serious problem, surely they should be raising it with management rather than complaining to same-level colleagues?

Yes, absolutely. And by the same token, if they bring it up again you can just say 'Talk to Manager about it' and move on.

given you don't even recogniser "VPN

That's very rude and condescending.

If you've got complaints about how the Manager/Area Manager is handling the Staff/Workload, then that needs to be directed to them.

It's none of any Collegues business, what decisions are made, unless it's blatantly unfair.

Is he the 'Norris Cole' type? every workplace has one, from time to time and they always fail to see the bigger picture.

This is a thread about working from home, not IT security...

Ha! Yes, very much a Norris Cole type

I can see how saying we need to have reasons can make it seem a little unfair. We can do all our work from home, bar meetings and running training sessions, which is where WFH regularly falls down a little. However, for 80% of work it's completely possible to do it to the same standard at home. So generally a random WFH day will only be requested if it's convenient as regards meetings and training etc.

I do suspect its cultural unfamiliarity. Half our firm can WFH whenever they want to, as they are fee-earning and so don't have set hours. The other half (us included) have set hours and so don't WFH very much. But given the way things have changed IT-wise in the recent past, this is more of a hangover and an idea of presenteeism than anything else. Which my manager is aware of, and thus seems flexible over.

I've worked in places which support wfh. In order to make life better for employees AND see the benefits in workloads / absence etc. I've also worked places where it was called "slacking from home", people treated anyone as on a day off. Projects might well be worked on but colleagues were unavailable etc. Perhaps his opinion is firmly molded in the second camp. He sees these employees as not at work = not working?

I wonder if your colleague is actually complaining about the fact that they don't have any of what they see as 'proper' reasons to WFH? Could be simple jealousy of other people's lives rather than a serious work-related complaint.

In my office everyone can WFH as needed btw. Parents, people with pets, people with medical conditions, people who own, people who rent, people who have to go off and sing in their band's concert no half-decent reason refused. Simple, and no animosity ensues.

I wfh one day a week, negotiated it after maternity leave.

it means for me i can collect from nursery earlier without a 50 minute commute and also I get to do one load of washing at lunchtime without a child "helping" out by scattering wet clothes about when I try to hang them to dry...

I use a work laptop and connect with vpn