To think 9-5 attendance at work is becoming a bit unnecessary?

[user1485342611]

With modern technology an awful lot of jobs could now be done remotely cutting out long commutes etc and also giving people a bit of flexibility around the hours they work.

Yet the default position in general seems to be that everyone should be in the office, between x hour and y hour, 5 days a week.

AIBU to think that this is becoming less necessary and far more workers could work from home at least part of the time, using remote access and being contactable by phone when needed?

I agree. But, there are some problems that maybe difficult to iron out.
You need to have allowances for work equipment - chair, computer, phone, printer, maybe wifi?
If workers take the piss you’ll still need to lease an office space
What about those people that don’t have an office space at home?

I can do do work from home, but I don’t have an office space so when the kids are home from school I have to decamp to my bedroom which isn’t all that great. I also get bored on my own.

If workers take the piss you’ll still need to lease an office space

No - you just fire them and get some that dont.

I think there are lots of jobs where it is necessary or at least beneficial to physically be there (and I don't just mean 'physical' jobs) but for the rest it is surely a lot to do with trust. I think there are too many people who take the piss while others are conscientious.

"When you're working from home you're not being disturbed by people coming in for a chat or a moan about something"

this is the biggest factor. It is amazing how much some people want to distract you from what you're doing and to the poster who says 8 hours work can become 4 - yes, totally.

didn't Dan Pink study a company - years ago - with weekly targets - so by end of working week you had to have achieved xyz but no one cared if you had done it in 14 hours on Tuesday or whatever..? most of my jobs could have operated like this. Save money in commuting costs and work clothes too.

bonfires agree there are piss takers but a lot of it comes down to poor management of targets. If you set quantifiable clear targets with clear deadlines then people cant take the piss or they'll be on performance management pretty quickly.

I feel that what currently happens is that people try to fit the WFM mindset into the current "office life" norms which are set up for a single earners/SAHP structure rather than starting from scratch and saying how can we make work better for how society functions now.

You can see the difference with many people when the "boss" is in the office or not . When you work with grown-ups, it makes no difference whatsoever, but with some workers the office becomes a holiday camp if they think they are on their own.

Not all adults can be trusted to work from home, and unfortunately it's really not that easy to get rid of people.

Totally agree re flexible hours, less so working from home .

I've worked flexibly for years, probably put in far more hours than I put in my timesheet. But there is a lot of trust within my organisation (we are all passionate about what we do) and no micro management.

I couldn't go back to fixed hours now.

If you set quantifiable clear targets with clear deadlines
that really doesn't work for every office job!

You can't expect all the support staff to work flexible hours either: you need a receptionist at set times, the IT department to be there when you are and I can think of many more.

yanbu.

We have a system where you can wfh if not in meetings etc with manager's agreement (which is generally given). long standkng employees can just wfh as and when.

I have to do fixed hours because I have to be available for client queries but I could be anywhere as long as they can get hold of me by email or phone.

I wish I could have flexibility over the actual hours too but you can't have everything.

I agree OP. Sadly in my experience nobody being paid the lower end of the salary scale is ever offered this opportunity! Apparently managers can be trusted to WFH but lowly admin types will just take the piss..
The few occasions I was able to WFH in my pervious job I got a lot more done. I just can't concentrate in noisy offices and the constant inane chat all around me drives me nuts. I think I am a hermit and I'm OK with that!
Now I work on my own all the time, although I do a lot of business over the phone, and occasionally have a face to face meeting, so that satisfies my need to have contact with others.
Some enterprises do need a bit of actual getting together (corridor time I think someone called it) and it does cut down on the emails, so I think it depends on what the business/organisation actually does, but for a lot of workers, especially ones who are inputting and managing data, they can do this anytime and anywhere, to fit round them.
Why not?
I run my business from my bedbedroom so there's no reason a spreadsheet can't be done at 11 pm from someone's lounge rather than 9 am in an office.
The impact on the roads and rails is also a huge thing, as well as opening up all kinds of work to, for example, single parents.
After all, if anyone knows how to manage time efficiently it's a single mum!

Not all adults can be trusted to work from home, and unfortunately it's really not that easy to get rid of people.

So maybe compensation structures need to change too? Is it really optimal to have most of the population being primarily rewarded for their willingness to spend 2 hours a day commuting to a concrete box and spend 8 hours in it?

This is the thing- nothing needs to be structured like it is.

In my experience, actual 9-5 jobs barely exist anymore anyway. I don’t think I’ve ever had a day shorter than at least 9-5:30, usually earlier/later. An actual 9-5 job would be a dream!

Well most office types I know who are below "manager" level work 8-4 or 9-5 and they really don't work beyond their hours. It's still totally normal up North!

I work from home two days a week and I love it. In fact, I definitely get more done at home as there aren’t any interruptions.
Unfortunately, some employees take the piss and working from home (WFH) means GOAJ ( going on a jolly).

I am not sure most of the population is a London commuter for a start, and again, many roles need to be done in an office.

I am all for WFH, but in my experience, there's a very big category of people who cannot be trusted. Even if you refuse to pay people sick pay for example (giving only statutory ), there are always some who will be off sick every Friday or Mondays, who will be off sick if they have to work bank holiday. That's just an example.

It's the same with the equipment: grown-up professionals just get on with it. The ones taking the piss will demand equipment, an office chair for their bad back and create a lot of grief and expenses.

You can sometimes wfh even in client facing professions. Some clients are ok with being faced over skype. Has the advantage for them of not needing to come into your office when they want to see you. There are people who value face to face meetings but there are also people who value not having to take time out of their day to travel to you. This, I would say, is becoming more common. I've done plenty of appointments over skype and phone even when physically in the office, let alone working remotely.

In terms of practical problems, I'm not suggesting these can never be resolved (obviously I'm not talking about eg train drivers as OP so obviously didn't mean jobs of that type that it doesn't need pointing out). But they quite often can. You furnish your staff with laptops and phones and you rent or buy office space that is X% smaller because people won't all be in working at once. Land is usually more expensive than mobile contracts. People don't necessarily need a home office space- if your work is computer and phone based you can work on your sofa.

If you are worried about people taking the piss, first ask yourself the question of whether it matters if they do fuck all at home if they're still getting the work done. Ie if they are managing to get their full work allocation done in 4 days in the office so they can relax the wfh day. If it doesn't, no problem. If it does, and you'd rather work them harder on their 5th day, ask yourself whether it's worth potentially losing efficiencies from other staff who are more productive when working from home, and pissing off the skiver by effectively penalising their efficiency. If the person who is skiving at home also skives in the office, then you need to be performance managing them.

None of this is to say there aren't potential pitfalls relating to wfh that can't really be solved. Some people just aren't suited to that way of working, and conversely sometimes it's advantageous for everyone to be physically together. But the same is true of people working in offices, and yet people don't take some people's difficulty thriving in an office environment as a reason to stop everyone from working in one. It's an inconsistent approach. People look for reasons why WFH won't work, when in actual fact the real reason is because I don't like the idea.

When I worked, I liked going to the office. Would hate to work at home. I Like a clear division between work and home and I also like getting to meet other people at work.

I actually think working from home would flush out all the dossers and messers, because they'd be judged totally on their output and the quality of their work, not on whether they're in on time, not leaving early, staying late so the boss can see them etc.

There's lots of people who are clocked in at 8am but are actually drinking coffee and chatting and putting on their make up and going out for a fag until 9.30. But on paper they've already put in an hour and a half more work than a colleague who arrives at 9.30 and gets to work immediately.

Presenteeism can actually mask a lot of idling around.

I just find I work better in two "bursts" with a decent break in between, so a "typical" day for me might be work 8-12 then 2-6. I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) do that in the office. Sometimes I even break the day up into three parts. Bonus for me in that because I'm at home I can do what I want in my breaks, rather than be stuck at my desk with a sandwich. Bonus for my employer because they're always getting the best out of me.

Even if you refuse to pay people sick pay for example (giving only statutory ), there are always some who will be off sick every Friday or Mondays, who will be off sick if they have to work bank holiday. That's just an example.

That does rather suggest you/your company aren't paying enough to make working bank holidays worthwhile for all the employees...

Presenteeism can actually mask a lot of idling around.

That is so true.

You can easily find a few minutes here and there to hang out a wash, empty the dishwasher or tidy up the bathroom. You can also run up to the supermarket at lunchtime and get stuff bought for the dinner.

Er, not if you are actually working you can't. I work from home, school hours and term time only, and because I really appreciate the flexibility this gives me with school holidays and not needing childcare I make it an absolute priority to actually work when it is time to do so. Yes, I can do all those things like empty the dishwasher when I would otherwise be commuting and that is a bonus - but that isn't actually working time.

Ok, so here's a question. If keystroke mapping/open diaries was the price of being able to WFH, would you agree to it?