To wonder about the heating bills for WFH?

[CheetasOnFajitas]

It’s occurred to me, now that colder weather has set in and it looks like those who can do so will be WFH for the next 6 months- the heating bills are going to be through the roof!

Has anyone’s employer acknowledged that home-based employees are going to have to bear this cost? I know for some it will be offset by no commuting costs, but not for all: my husband and I cycle to work normally.

I do acknowledge that I am personally lucky to (a) have a job that can be done from home and (b) have a job at all.

[itoohaveopinions]

This is such an unusual situation and yes its sucky that your heating bills will go up. If your employer won’t compensate for the extra money on heating then I’d guess your only option might be to change employers? I can’t imagine a law that would make an employer pay for your home heating but IANAL! The pandemic sucks in so many big and small ways!

[UniversalAunt]

Most offices have AirCon of some variety, not for the comfort of workers but to manage the heat given off by PCs, printers & networked machines on top of the heat generated by workers.

Too much heat generated by machines on a hot day affects machine & telecom kit performance. Human comfort is an additional benefit. There is no maximum workplace temperature by which workers can not work - minimum temperature is another matter.

So, back to my point. Yes, you can heat the room you use to WFH, a small heater will keep your toes toasty, maybe not as comfy as workplace heating but it can be done. Managing working on a protracted run of hot days without AC I found a real grind.

[Xenia]

Sorry Judy's husband has lost his job. From a tax law point of view however as the husband is now home all day the heating is as much to heat him as to keep Judy warm whilst working so it is that kind of dual purpose issue which is hard to settle fairly.

However in practice will come down to worker shortage. If you are a worker who brings in loads of lucrative business an employer will be doing all they can to keep that person. If they are someone who can be replaced at the drop of a hat we know what the employer will say if the employee asks for a winter hearing allowance.

[WaxOnFeckOff]

A contract of employment is a document that both parties sign up to. I expect that the basics are that employee commits to undertake certain tasks and the employer commits to providing a safe working environment as well as pay and perks.

In this case, the employer is unable or unwilling to hold up their end of the contract and expects the employee to pick up the slack.

Now, if the employer was to have an honest proper discussion about the difficulties and losses they are experiencing and to compensate employees for using their own resources to work (electricity/gas/stationary etc etc) would put their existence in jeopardy or require job losses, I think most folk would be grown up enough to just suck it up if they could to preserve their longer term security.

However, that's not always the case and some companies are doing the same or better than they normally would and are seeking to basically reduce peoples employment terms by stealth. They'd rather any money that they gain go to directors or shareholders.

That type of behaviour doesn't benefit the employees or future employees or the industry etc.

[Judystilldreamsofhorses]

OP, I think people saying “you are lucky to have a job” are missing the point that people’s circumstances have changed.

I know I am “lucky to have a job”, but my DP now doesn’t, so our income has reduced by over 50%, and our outgoings are rising due to me WFH. We live in an old granite property, which is hard to heat anyway, and I am not in a job where I can stick on a slanket. I walk to and from work, so no saving there.

I don’t for a second expect my employer to pick up my bills, and even at work I have to buy my own resources, but I think your question is completely reasonable, and people have not read it properly/been dicks.

[CheetasOnFajitas]

@Bwlch

There’s no voting enabled.

There is.

Currently: 61% YABU, 39% YABBU

Interesting, I didn’t deliberately enable voting because my AIBU was re wondering whether any employers had offered to cover these costs- not that that has stopped a zillion posters from reading it as “AIBU to demand that my employer cover heating costs?”. I guess I must have clicked “enable voting” by accident- voting was showing zero until I registered my own vote just now.

[Bwlch]

YANBU

[Bwlch]

There’s no voting enabled.

There is.

Currently: 61% YABU, 39% YABBU

[CheetasOnFajitas]

@THEDEACON

Originally I voted YANBU however having read all your posts you are in fact being very unreasonable!

There’s no voting enabled.

But thanks for the clarification.

[THEDEACON]

Originally I voted YANBU however having read all your posts you are in fact being very unreasonable!

[HardJustGotHarder]

There a half price heater in wilko £15

Uses 12p an hour in electric


So £30 pay out ....
Then about £1.50 a day for both heaters...

[thistimeofyear]

you are lucky to have a job and one that can be done from home
put layers on, heat one room - as others have said before
your company is probably struggling like many others are so make the most of your job - while you have it

[fuffit]

How many people in the UK have air-conditioning at work?
I suspect that the unseen thing is a real risk.

[UniversalAunt]

Not yet read through the thread, but jumped to post.

In a FTSE 250 management role, I WFH for a variety of reasons. It was great at first: no commuting, no need to dress for the workplace, slithers of ‘spare time’ to do a quick shop/pop up to shops/grab a coffee with friend & on a nice day work in the garden.

But slowly & steadily over a couple of years the WFH rot set in. The working day started earlier - hey no commute, let’s start online mtgs at 08:00 - & some crackpot leadership meme of daily virtual stand-ups at 07:00 started; lunchtime & comfort breaks evaporated as online mtgs crept to be back to back; the daily walk to create the time bubble between home & work deflated; heating bills were dire in the winter & on very hot days no fan could match the comfort of office based air conditioning.

I found the erosion of Self (& budget) of WFH too much for me. I felt isolated, rushed, unseen, unacknowledged & out of pocket.

As soon as I could, I secured an office based role. It gave me a real lift to get dressed up, out of the house at a fixed time, work diligently & efficiently to leave on time. I used my commute time better & organised my life far better to my benefit.

Give it a long cold winter & a heatwave summer, & WFH will not seem so easy an option.

[WombatChocolate]

Longer term, if wfh becomes more widespread and lasting, these things will become part of standard terms and conditions of employment.

For example, the mileage allowance paid is to cover all aspects of car cost involved it using your own car for work - so you can’t claim extra for insuring, servicing, buying etc.

However it takes years for these things normally to become standard terms in contracts and working practices usually change slowly.

Here we are just 6 months on from a major event which has caused significant changes to working patterns and conditions. Today is one of the first cold days. No wonder firms haven’t all considered if they will do anything about heating bills. It will remain a grey area for months and years. And there is no definite answer that is right in all scenarios.

I’m the end I suspect that as firms have travel policies with specifications on amounts you can b can claim for lunch, petrol etc, working from home policies will emerge - so clearer defs of what equipment you will be supplied with/be able to claim for, plus detail on other possible expenses like heating and whether it can or cannot be claimed for. They will probably pin down core hours and in some cases rules about being in front of your computer at particular times ....removing some of the benefits of flexibility at home, for certain kinds of job. These will be in contracts where wfh is the usual pattern. Where it’s occasional or only in response to a crisis, like now things will be less clear-cut and workers will have to take the cons along with the pros.

[WombatChocolate]

It will be correct that heating bills in offices will have dropped if no-one is able to go in. Where some people are still in then the building will have to be heated. And the costs need to be totalled - there are lots of new costs due to Covid too which the firm is bearing as extras. Plus if changes to benefits/expenses allowed and also wages should be related to Covid, the drop in revenue most firms have experienced probably means that whilst lots of firms will need to give some heating allowance to employees wfh, that will be more than offset by cuts to wages resulting from firms being less profitable.
You can’t have it all ways - not wanting to incur any extra costs but also not being willing to accept there might be lower pay.

Not all fixed costs have fallen for firms - by nature they are fixed and don’t really change - such as building rent as lease terms determine how long payment must continue.

The real thing to consider is the firms total costs - in most (not all) cases these have not really fallen as Covid compliance has brought many i costs. And if you assess what should be paid to employees by looking at both sides of the coin of costs and revenue, it’s profitability which is key. For many this is down. Employees will at some point be impacted by this....less wages, redundancies so no pay for some workers, cuts to other aspects of the employment package. If you give workers allowances for heating etc you are raising costs further. Yes, those workers allow the firm to operate and bring in revenue and if a firm is being profitable can expect to see gains via increased pay, but in bad times they can expect no pay rise, pay cuts and redundancies too. It’s simple maths.

I don’t think the business is shifting the burden of costs onto the employee. In reality lots of offices will be geared for the few staff who have to go in still. It’s just that overall heating costs of all the homes and office together are more than if everyone is at home. But because government not the firm has required as many to work from home as possible, the costs fall on whoever directly faces them - and heating bills go to the property occupier not their employer.

Firms will approach it in different ways and a lot of this will be based on profitability. Some who have done well have already given bonuses to their workers to acknowledge their hard work (lots of excess hours) during lockdown. Others have written to say they acknowledge the efforts but profitability is down and survival perilous and so there won’t be pay rises and some have to give pay cuts to avoid redundancies.

People think ‘my heating costs £7 per week’ but the firm isn’t saving £7xno of homeworkers on heating bills in the office. So they can pay it to employees and raise their costs or let the worker pay it. Most people have accepted that things like increased heating bills are regrettable but understand why the firm probably won’t pay and lots will say they would rather face this bill than possibly have wage cuts or see people lose their jobs .....and this bigger picture impact on lots of workers absolutely correlates to seemingly small additional costs for the firm to you as an individual, but which total vast sums overall and can make a big difference to the bottom line and people’s jobs.

If firms have done really well during Covid and don’t reward their workers then that’s not good. Most haven’t done well though and are keeping every penny of expenditure under review and avoiding extras. Lots will find that ‘perks’ that were part of the job such as memberships or training or expenses will all be scaled back hugely. Broadly speaking we have to suck it up along with some extra heating costs and see it as Covid costs rather than employer exploitation costs I think.

[CheetasOnFajitas]

@thecatsthecats

I said in terms that I did NOT say your comments were irrelevant to this debate. I’m not sure why you continued to accuse me of thinking this. The reason that I pointed out, in response to your statement “I take a dim view of whining by my employees”, that my employer’s position is very different to your position, was to clarify that what you see as “whining” because of YOUR particular circumstances might not be viewed in the same way by my employer. Accordingly, I did not agree with the implication that I myself was “whining”. If you did not mean to suggest that then I apologise.

Turning to your question “Do you think it is the employer's sole responsibility to make adjustments for employees resulting from the pandemic?

I mean, if my mum suddenly needed expensive medical care, I might want my salary doubling, but it's not my boss's responsibility to provide that.

My perspective is that every business has fixed costs. It is standard for those costs to be borne by the company. You don’t pay someone a salary then ask them to buy their own desk for the office, or chip in to have the meeting rooms repainted. In current circumstances the company is not paying, or paying less, to heat the office. However, it is still necessary for employees to have heat in the place that they are working. The cost of that heating is now being borne by the employees. This is a shift in the “bargain” as to who pays the fixed costs of running the business.

The cost of your mother’s medical care was never a cost that was borne by your employer.

[CheetasOnFajitas]

@refusetobeasheep

As a small business we're still having to pay rent on an office we cannot use; we have had absolutely zero government help and are just trying to keep our heads above water and keep our employees in jobs. We really don't need to be handed yet more expenses to cover.

I’m not sure I follow- your office is not being used but that cost was always factored into your business model and your employees are still working? Of course, if income is down then being able to get out of paying for an unused office would be a good way to make a saving, but the point is that your employees would be contributing to the ability of the company to keep working by funding the running of their own working space.

[thecatsthecats]

@WombatChocolate

But it's not the employers who are saying people should work at home....it's government direction. And employers need to follow government guidance on these matters - no employers what's to call workers in against guidance (which would save workers their daytime heating bills) to then be held responsible or partly responsible for health issues which spread. Not all businesses and places of work can become covid compliant and for those that can, there are substantial costs....some businesses have told workers they will face a pay cut becaus of these additional costs and falling sales. So it really isn't as simple as saying 'work heated the building when we were in the office so they should now heat my home whilst I'm working at home'.

Individuals tend to see this purely from their point of view and based on their individual circumstances. But they need to recognise there is a LOT going on at the moment - businesses have faced all kinds of reductions in income and increases in costs. The impact of changes don't all fall in exactly the same way on all employees. Basically, it isn't all about you!

Most people seem to be able to see the complexities and nuances in this. They don't just say 'I had heating provided at work so now I need it provided at home or I will be £7 per month worse off' - they recognise that even if they personally haven't also made some gains (commuting, work clothes etc) many others will have, plus the fact it's not just about them and their personal circumstance and that the employer isn't some kind of government social support system for who exists to redistribute income and deal with inequalities. They also see a bigger picture and can see it's hard from the business point of view too - that there have been huge changes for employers to deal with, huge costs and cuts in revenue and constantly changing recommendations and that this is new for everyone. So actually most people are willing to do some 'bearing with' and accept that the downsides of Covid fall on everyone in some form and perhaps this heating increase is one of the impacts on them.

I reiterate that it isn't the employer responsibility to pay salaries or give benefits based on people's incomes and needs. Being more hard up or struggling more does not entitle you to more from the employer. Living in a small flat or a draughty house isn't any of the employers concern. People muddle up the role of employer and government. Government is the one who gives benefits to those in need, not employers.

You've put this far better than me - in my head, I'm afraid I default to "I'm not your mum for goodness sake".

To be honest I'd find that level of codependency on work very toxic. I treat my staff well because I'm not a jerk, and more importantly because I know that I reap the benefits tenfold in loyalty and productivity.

[Shell4429]

If you have a job that you can do from home surely you can afford the heating? I have worked from home for thirteen years and not well off by any stretch of the imagination but I always have the heating on. It’s worth it just because I don’t have to get up and leave the house. Sorry but it just sounds so petty, as though you’re expecting your employer to pay a gazillion heating bills when thousands of people can’t work at all.

[WombatChocolate]

I also agree that vast inequalities in society are wrong. It isn't right that some people struggle to feed themesleves, live in crap accommodation or struggle to afford to heat their homes. Absolutley. But it isn't the job of the employer to spot who is struggling and pay them more or give heating allowances, whilst deciding those who have big houses can clearly a ford to be paid less.

[WombatChocolate]

But it's not the employers who are saying people should work at home....it's government direction. And employers need to follow government guidance on these matters - no employers what's to call workers in against guidance (which would save workers their daytime heating bills) to then be held responsible or partly responsible for health issues which spread. Not all businesses and places of work can become covid compliant and for those that can, there are substantial costs....some businesses have told workers they will face a pay cut becaus of these additional costs and falling sales. So it really isn't as simple as saying 'work heated the building when we were in the office so they should now heat my home whilst I'm working at home'.

Individuals tend to see this purely from their point of view and based on their individual circumstances. But they need to recognise there is a LOT going on at the moment - businesses have faced all kinds of reductions in income and increases in costs. The impact of changes don't all fall in exactly the same way on all employees. Basically, it isn't all about you!

Most people seem to be able to see the complexities and nuances in this. They don't just say 'I had heating provided at work so now I need it provided at home or I will be £7 per month worse off' - they recognise that even if they personally haven't also made some gains (commuting, work clothes etc) many others will have, plus the fact it's not just about them and their personal circumstance and that the employer isn't some kind of government social support system for who exists to redistribute income and deal with inequalities. They also see a bigger picture and can see it's hard from the business point of view too - that there have been huge changes for employers to deal with, huge costs and cuts in revenue and constantly changing recommendations and that this is new for everyone. So actually most people are willing to do some 'bearing with' and accept that the downsides of Covid fall on everyone in some form and perhaps this heating increase is one of the impacts on them.

I reiterate that it isn't the employer responsibility to pay salaries or give benefits based on people's incomes and needs. Being more hard up or struggling more does not entitle you to more from the employer. Living in a small flat or a draughty house isn't any of the employers concern. People muddle up the role of employer and government. Government is the one who gives benefits to those in need, not employers.

[raspberrymuffin]

I work for a local authority and so the money they're saving in not heating my office is a drop in the ocean compared to the costs of keeping essential services running through a pandemic, so I'm not expecting any help with my heating. And it helps that unlike the OP I'm saving quite a bit on commuting costs. But if I still worked in the private sector for a company that was doing well (as many are) I would absolutely expect them to contribute to my wfh costs - why should anyone in that position be expected to just hand over money to the company's shareholders?

However it's heartening to see so many anti-capitalists on here who believe that it's wrong that some people are living very comfortably while others are struggling to feed their families. I'm not sure I would personally choose middle income women as the primary target of my ire, but I suppose we all have to start somewhere.

[SantaClaritaDiet]

Oh I know people will claim anything and everything - and it feels pointless to be the only one who doesn't.

It will have to be paid back though. If you are struggling with an extra fiver a month, you might need to rethink your finances fast because it will end up badly. Just look at the prices in supermarkets, I haven't found 1 person who hasn't said their food bill has exploded.

I am worried.

[Hopoindown31]

@SantaClaritaDiet

Any income tax rises will be applied to all regardless. That isn't a reason to not claim back reliefs for which you are entitled. The admin burden for 6 quid a week or so is not really worth it though.