‘Work from home if at all possible’ yet managers are already planning to get us back in.

[Beenjuice]

Our team provides an email and phone service to customers who buy our products. We cleared out the office the day that boris announced lockdown, took all our gear home and apart from the little loss of service the day of the swap over have worked hard to keep the email responses dealt with and incoming phone calls answered.
We all thought we were doing as best a job as we possibly can - we know there’s been a small dip in the number of enquiries answered per day than usual but that’s due to the extra communication issues that working apart from one another brings.
Today we were given the heads up that it’s looking likely we’ll be back in the office from May 11th albeit spread apart. Apparently the dip in numbers of enquiries being sent has been noted by the powers that be above.
So what was the point of the last 4 weeks at home? A group of about 15 of us having to use the same office kitchen, loos, door handles, stair rails and other places.
So what’s changed? Why does the rule ‘work from home if you can’ no longer apply to us? And how can it be justified if we’ve just spent the past 4 weeks working from home! Our customers haven’t seen a drop in service just the number game from the people above.
AIBU?

@cantory I think the trouble McDonald's had was they couldn't operate with their staff 2 m apart it just wasn't possible in their busy kitchens . So I think they have been working on a solution during the lockdown . Maybe reorganizing the kitchen etc.

@Bluntness100 Where is the proof most employers are clamouring to get staff back when so many places that are legally allowed to be open still are not? I mean shit employers like Sports Direct will be, but most no.
@Peppafrig Have you ever worked in a kitchen? Very few kitchens are capable of doing that. Tiny take aways with 1 person in the kitchen can like the cheap chicken and chips place locally that is still open, but the vast majority no.

@cantory yes I have that's why I know it's impossible for many of the company's and that's why they closed when they didn't have too. As even though they were allowed to open it was on the condition that they were following social distancing and they couldn't .

I really wonder why some think places are all just going to open up again when so many places that legally did not have to close, did in fact close and are still closed. The government did not make them close down, they chose to.
I also wonder how many people will actually spend money in places that do open. Most people are not even buying clothes over the internet because of having to return unwanted clothes, so why would they suddenly be happy to go into a clothes shop?

What exactly is your point @cantory ? That we should all remain like this until a vaccine is developed (if ever)?

Wealth before health. Our team have busted a gut to make it work and because the ‘numbers’ have been affected then we have to expose ourselves to a higher risk.

This isn't fair. if your employer's profit margin is 10% but productivity is down 15% owing to people wfh then the business will be losing money hand over fist and will go bust before long. Then people will be out of jobs.

Then, we'll be paying them benefits instead of them paying taxes. The business will have gone pop so there'll be no vat payments or sales or corporation tax. And less money to fund safe roads, the fire brigade, the NHS, social workers, a million and one other things - which will inevitably lead to deaths.

I agree absolutely that people being healthy is more important than people being rich. But the relationship between people's wellness and the flow of money is far, far more complicated than some people seem to think

Oh I agree @vanillandhoney it was more to driven point to cantory. Who is of the mind that employers are unreasonable and that the nation is vulnerable.

@smokescreen Thta everyone who can wfh should continue wfh until a vaccine, which may be at the end of this year.
OR the government puts in place a proper mass testing and contact tracing programme to keep deaths very low like Germany has done.

Our government wants to do nothing to limit deaths, send us all back to work, then act surprised when a vaccine is ready

@cantory

You'll need to check with your vet. But the general guidance is that overdue vaccines should now be had.

Those retailers that did close without being ordered to, were acting responsibly. It gave them opportunities to implement social distancing measures and tidy up their health and safety measures.

A lot of the workforce is actually working (including your building firm) so the OP's employers aren't being unreasonable. Yet earlier, you mentioned class actions and sueing your employer.

I think what you're saying above, is that chip shops and your local fruit and veg ship made choices to close. Fair enough. The OPs employer is making their choice their workforce return to their workplace. It is not unreasonable. What do you think about that? Now you've calmed down.

Our government wants to do nothing to limit deaths, send us all back to work,

Of course they don't. If the NHS could have coped, the lockdown would never have happened. They couldn't give a toss if you, me or anyone else died.

Our government wants to do nothing to limit deaths, send us all back to work,

This is so true and the reason we have more deaths than any other country in Europe. We have handled it awful. Too slow to react .

Do you have access to the previous data versus currently? Would there be other times when jbbthe office this would be the trend?

For example, I wfh as the norm and our stats are currently all over the place, some weeks significantly above our usual expected pattern others significantly below.

Seeing over time trends versus this supposed drop may assist with an argument that there's no valuable tangible gains from office returns and may increase staff sickness and productivity.

Many closed because they got free money from tax payers to close. That has almost bankrupted the nation and will lead to huge tax rises for nurses, teachers and most of the rest of us next year but we cannot afford to do it forever or we have to start making nurses, teachers etc redundant. It is the reality of the situation. many private sector workers have already had to accept 20% payments and loads have been laid off. We have at least 1m more people not working and on benefits as before too.

@Peppafig....Personally,I think McDonalds closed in Erope and the UK due to the fact that their takeaway sales wouldn't be as profitable as they needed. So many people walk or use public transport in the UK and Europe. And they can't utilise the drive-thru. At least thats what one of their Sales Managers told me this morning when I was picking up my steak,egg and cheese bagel

We have been in uncharted waters and a lot of businesses shut down or introduced WFH or furloughed,who legally didn't have to,which probably was a good idea short term
Going forward most companies will look to reopen,as otherwise they will go bust ,meaning no job and no pay for employees
Hopefully most businesses will allow workers to WFH if they want to and relax rules on looking after children while WFH
But sooner or later most businesses will want staff back at work and if you don't want to do that you will have to leave or risk being dismissed

There will be a vaccine, hopefully by the end of the year. Businesses where staff cannot wfh are legally allowed to stay open. I just want businesses to have to continue allowing staff to wfh until there is a vaccine hopefully by the end of the year.
So no it is not closing down the economy, but limiting deaths.

@user1487194234 A business dismissing a worker who can wfh but the employer is refusing to let them, especially where the employee or a member of their household is vulnerable, may find themselves on a sticky wicket.

God I cannot wait to get back to the office. I loathe working from home. However my fear is that we will be required back in the office before the schools and nurseries go back. That would leave my husband and I with a massive problem

I am not at all convinced there'll be a vaccine by the end of the year. Development, testing, approval, mass production....I think we're looking at next year realistically

@cantory

If the business can demonstrate that it is less effective working from home and can correlate that with a dip in productivity, coupled with a demonstration that they have put effective HS measures in place then the employee would be on a hiding to nothing if they tried to take action.

The employer does not have a duty of care to the family of the employee, vulnerable or not. Legally it does not extend out to family members only the employee. It is the responsibility of the employee to determine if the job would have a detrimental impact on their personal situation.

Think you are clutching at straws there.

I agree @Buxx

Cantory has been talking about class actions for employers refusing to allow people to WFH. Her word and the hill she wishes to die on is 'vulnerable'

@maddening I wonder if we work for the same organisation

A business dismissing a worker who can wfh but the employer is refusing to let them, especially where the employee or a member of their household is vulnerable, may find themselves on a sticky wicket

That’s a very difficult thing for an employee to prove, and a very easy thing for an employer. They can talk about ability to manage, overall performance levels, even the benefits of a team working together. An employee will have to disprove the overall benefits.

Irrelevant though, you’re on here swinging your arms about shouting about how you’re going to sue, how you will be encourage everyone else to sue, when if you’re personally shielded, then you will likely be protected.

As a pp said, that’s not your family who is also protected, and it’s not vulnerable as per your own definition of vulnerable it’s you who hast to be shielded. If you can’t do the job in the location required, which is often even in the employment contract, then the employer can move to capability termination.

So if your employer refuses to let you work from home. You’re going to sue them after they fire you? Or maybe you mean you’d take them to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal?

I’d start right now gathering data on the overall team performance, management ability with a remote team etc, so you can prove the company should have permitted it, because this is likely going to come to pass sooner rather than later.

Good luck.

Think my working from.home will be quite long tbh as I see patients in clinic and that cant happen obvs. Also our company making money as no dna as all on phone so less expenses as dont need to pay for venue. U can continue working from home if u have poor health or kids

To cantory
Yes they may ,but in the short term it's going to be the employee's problem
And IME employers are taking advice on how to comply with employment law
There is no automatic right to WFH etc