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.

The point about time is an interesting one @DGRossetti. My job is not a set hours clock on clock off type of thing, it is a case of “work the hours necessary to get the job done”. Unfortunately certain elements of the job take longer when working remotely so my hours have increased; I am almost always working during the hours that I used to be cycling. What is more, it is now expected that we can do early meetings with international offices in time zones that are ahead, whereas previously we could have said “no, 8am is too early for me as I will be travelling at that time.” My child’s nursery is only 5 minutes from home so I can work right up to pickup time, whereas previously I finished up earlier to let me cycle home first.

It’s a good theory but doesn’t stack up in practice and pretty much all my colleagues are having a similar experience in that respect.

Sorry - got cut off.

I’d say see this as one of the negatives of Covid that falls on us all. There have been loads of negatives from death to isolation to depression to job loss to bigger heating bills.

Covid is to blame not the employer. They might well prefer to have workers in the office but can’t. So we all beat the costs of various kinds.

It’s fine to feel concerned about the bills. People are concerned about all the Covid effects from being worried if their job is secure to worrying they will catch the disease or they or their loved ones might die. Be concerned...but targeting it onto one person to blame, such as the employer seems to miss the point that we are all losers on this and people are not setting out to create difficulties. Some of it we just have to suck-up.
But some people seem to struggle with that attitude and always think someone somewhere should be restoring the status quo.

There is a new status quo. It includes job insecurity, higher heating bills and less social mixing. There is no entitlement to what we had before or the sooner we recognise things have changed quite radically, the sooner we can live the lives we have today,,,,which include higher winter heating costs.

Heated throws are the way forward. Cheap to run and soooo cosy.

Spare a thought for children in school and their staff. Risk assessments include 'well ventilated classrooms, dining rooms and office space' to keep schools COVID secure - doors and windows open in reality.

I spent a day last week in a school, in meetings, absolutely frozen by the end.

@WombatChocolate I appreciate what you are saying. However it is entirely possible that a business that is doing well despite Covid (such as mine) could consider a gesture that might go some way to alleviate the effect on its employees, because they can find clever accounting and tax ways to reduce the actual cost to them of doing so. For individuals it is a much more straightforward hit on the pocket.

When I’m in the wirkplace, I get free meals.
So now I’m having to pay to provide those meals. And the loo paper I would have used on work time and less wear and tear on my furniture as I was sitting in work furniture, and more cleaning materials at home because I’m here more so the house is dirtier.

Should work pay for all those?

We have to adjust to this new way of life and the costs (and gains( which come with it. Some get gains of saved commuting costs and others don’t ....there is no calculator to present to employers to say ‘I’ve lost more than I’ve gained’ and if there was, perhaps they would present it back to the workers saying they now want to pay their staff less because what staff and the business deliver now is less than previously -but no-one woukd consuder that okay.

We all face new costs because of Covid. We just have to bear them. It’s hard but it’s the reality and it isn’t down to the employer to bear them all - some fall on them and they must bear those. Some fall on individuals.

So today when I’m making my own lunch and not having the nice meal I’d have at work, I won’t think ‘Grrr work should be paying for this and it’s an outrage that it’s costing me when my salary hasn’t risen’ - I just see it for what it is.....something that can be provided by work when I’m there. But which I need to provide if I’m not.

@CheetasOnFajitas

The point about time is an interesting one *@DGRossetti*. My job is not a set hours clock on clock off type of thing, it is a case of “work the hours necessary to get the job done”. Unfortunately certain elements of the job take longer when working remotely so my hours have increased; I am almost always working during the hours that I used to be cycling. What is more, it is now expected that we can do early meetings with international offices in time zones that are ahead, whereas previously we could have said “no, 8am is too early for me as I will be travelling at that time.” My child’s nursery is only 5 minutes from home so I can work right up to pickup time, whereas previously I finished up earlier to let me cycle home first.

It’s a good theory but doesn’t stack up in practice and pretty much all my colleagues are having a similar experience in that respect.

This is the real world. It's give and take. And obviously is very emplyer dependent. Some employers totally get it, while others will continue to be the arseholes they were when offices were involved.

but generally if you've been given and are taking by being able and allowed to work from home, then I think giving a little back to your employer creates a balance in life. In which case using that flexibility and freedom - for example in "out of hours" calls - seems a fair trade off.

As an IT wonk, I would be happy if a WFH employee had a separate - business provided - broadband connection though. And the company should totally pay for that, which would eliminate quibbles over £4/week or whatever for broadband. Main reasons being (1) security (you have no idea and no control over domestic broadband); (2) clearly defined SLA (generally domestic broadband is "when we get around to it) and (3) just seems tidy.

I'd be curious if any of the big telcos - BT, Virgin, Sky have swung into action and created programmes to provide business lines to employees homes as part of their contract with big companies ? Having dealt with them in the past, I'm guessing no.

Many years ago, when DS was between the ages of 2 and 4, I had a job where I left before he got up, and got home after he was put down. So basically never saw him during the week. Which made weekends precious. If it had been possible, I would happily have taken less money - not necessarily to WFH but just to have some flexibility to see my son grow up a little.

Ultimately thought, what employees do or do not want will be far outweighed by what the money says. If an employer suddenly sees a massive fall in costs from not renting and servicing a big office with a disproportionately smaller fall (if any) in profitability then it will be very hard to explain to shareholders they're going to have to stump up to return to offices.

I note the expected total disengagement of the government with the whole issue.

I wonder how many carers have been able to keep jobs they were going to have to leave by being gifted WFH ? (Again, the lack of figures speaks volumes about the status of carers in the UK.)

There is a new status quo. It includes job insecurity,

I left school in the early 80s and was told in no uncertain terms - by the news, by the government, by my teachers and by my DF that I could forget about "job for life". If anyone younger than me was taught differently they were lied to.

I don't wfh, I'm a sahm, but if I'm cold during the day and the kids are at school, I never put the heating on. I just put my dressing gown on over my clothes

When I’m in the workplace, I get free meals.

I can assure you that you are very much in a minority....

I started working from home in 1994. My gas and electricity bills are currently about £3800 a year. I have the fan heater going now even (as a bit too early to put on the central heating yet). My son is studying in another room downstairs (although he does not have a fan or other heater on).

Hubby’s lack of travel etc should surely cover it. There’s only so much tax to go around. And employers will find a way to wiggle out of it.

Yes, I agree there is a straightforward hit on the pocket. However I don’t think it is the employer responsibility.

Firms have also faced lots of hits on their pockets. But no-one really thinks they should be relieved of those by paying staff less - it’s just been accepted as one of those tough things.

Heating is one of those tough things of Covid in the same way feeling isolated is. We have to adjust to new norms. Maybe some people adjust with a slanket or a plug in heater or working in a different room. It’s easier for some people to adjust just by putting the heating on more but life generally is easier for some who have more choices. It isn’t the employers job to plug the gap for those who struggle more or find adjustments needed arising from Covid living difficult. If individuals can’t manage it themselves, that’s a job for government not the employer.

However I would say we all have to be willing to bear costs and make adjustments and not expect government to cover everything or restore us to pre-Covid standards. Things have simply changed and we all need to live in the new now and expect some things to be different.

Saying ‘but last year I didn’t need to buy so much loo roll as myself and DH were out during the day so now I’m worse off and someone somewhere must pay for it, but not me’ just doesn’t help or acknowledge the shift.

Lots of people will financially struggle this winter - part time work for those previously furloughed from full time, with government subsidies. But less than full pay. Those made redundant. Those who owe money due to debts built during lockdown etc etc. Our individual costs and struggles are part of a bigger picture. They aren’t just faced by us, they haven’t been deliberately generated by employers or government. We all have to find new ways to make our budgets if incomings and outgoings work ....and most people will be worse off. It shouldn’t be a surprise - it’s the impact of a pandemic!

When I’m in the workplace, I get free meals

Goodness me, I'm public sector - council - but even when I was a teacher in school, not even a free cup of coffee. We have to take our own or pay into a 'kitty' for tea/coffee, milk and sugar.

@SidneyStreet

When I’m in the workplace, I get free meals

Goodness me, I'm public sector - council - but even when I was a teacher in school, not even a free cup of coffee. We have to take our own or pay into a 'kitty' for tea/coffee, milk and sugar.

You can blame the taxman for that. And to be honest I am astounded that no one at HMRC hasn't sat down and said ...

"You know this WFH thing ? It's really a benefit in kind isn't it ? How are we going to tax it ?"

only I know for a fact they have ....

‘I get free meals in the workplace..’
I assure you that’s not the norm.

Of course it’s not the norm. That wasn’t what I was suggesting. I was pointing out that a benefit of being in the workplace has been lost ....and I don’t expect to be compensated for that loss. I fully acknoqledge it was something that could be provided whilst I was at work due to the nature of the business but won’t be provided when I’m at home. It’s fine. Like heating, it’s adding to my costs of working from home....but I’m fine with that as I can see this is just one of the new costs that come from this way of working that I must suck up. It’s not the employees fault. Things are different now and expectations must change.

But lots of people haven’t realised their expectations need to change. There will be no additional wages for costs saved by business for things like heating, loo roll, cleaning. Likewise there won’t be pay cuts due to firms incurring extra costs to run Covid compliant operations or their loss of revenue during lockdown.

We all have to adjust to new costs (and benefits too sometimes) arising from this. The past is gone!

Lots of friends on working from home contracts have a heating allowance from their company.

Worth an ask

@Jojo19834

You know it’s not your employer asking you to wfh right? They are stumping up for empty office costs so not sure why they should pay for your increased costs? Having said that, our employer has given the maximum tax free amount a month to us

In other words: "I'm alright, Jack. Why are you complaining?" Weird reply

Interesting to speculate that if a lot more people start being home during the hours of daylight then solar heating of some description suddenly seems more attractive.

Who knows, maybe the UK could see a boom in smaller scale solar power ?

Obviously it would have to happen in the absence of any coherent or indeed comprehensible plan from government. But I'm sure the nation that came up with Boaty McBoatface is more than capable of rising to the challenge.

Firms have also faced lots of hits on their pockets. But no-one really thinks they should be relieved of those by paying staff less - it’s just been accepted as one of those tough things.

No it hasn’t! My husband’s company have cut pay by 15% across the board. Several friends have also had pay cuts.

Absolutely.

Ask if you’d like to. Perhaps present figures for what you’d imagine the extra cost to be.

Some firms might give something. Many more won’t. And I don’t think not giving something makes them a bad employer - as some will certainly present it. They may well be facing all kinds of additional costs that workers know nothing of, or struggling to avoid making people redundant and adding to their costs with heating allowances might just tip the balance.

A lot of people want money for heating but forget this could be the loss of a job for someone else. There is a bigger picture and st the moment we all need to ‘bear with’ a bit and rather than being determined to have our ‘rights’) not that heating being paid for whilst wfh is a right) Sometimes it’s good to see the bigger picture and see everyone is facing new costs and challenges and we might just need to bear them.

The earlier poster emphasised she made no savings on travel, work clothes or spending on work lunches but was facing increased bills. Yes, but she also needs to see the employer decision here isn’t just about her but there is a bigger picture of the business costs and a totally new paradigm that we’re operating in now. Her monthly household budget doesn’t have to be balanced to it’s pre-Covid levels by the employer. She has to make adjustments in her life to make it work. And if it can’t it will be government responsibility to plug serious need gaps not the employer.

Pay cuts in some jobs.

Yes, sorry - of course this has happened in lots of areas. Absolutely. Very difficult for people and another of the Covid costs on society.

People worried about their heating bill rising should see this bigger picture of people being impacted negatively. It isn’t a race to the bottom of who suffers most, but I think we all need to expect we lose out due to Covid in some way.

Some people have had relatives die, others seen family depressed or been depressed, some have lost jobs, some have been furloughed and faced insecurities, some have had pay cuts, some have to work hours that don’t suit them, some face extra costs of working from home .....all costs of Covid. All this current life that we have to adjust to. It’s not a race to the bottom but seeing the bigger picture and realising the vast majority are losing out somewhere and keeping some perspective from that is helpful I think.

@WombatChocolate you were making some sensible and reasoned points but blew it with “don’t complain because some people’s relatives have died from Covid”.

I do agree broadly with what you are saying and, as I have been at pains to point out, nowhere in this thread have I stamped my feet and demanded that my employer cancel out every negative effect of Covid for me personally. However there is no reason why consideration should not be given to spreading the financial effects in a slightly more equitable way if that can be achieved, small context-specific measures that might make a difference. That’s all I’m saying.

Well I thinks is a significant misrepresentation to suggest I said ‘don’t complain because people’s relatives have died from Covid’ - you know I didn’t say that. That is a big leap to make from the point I made that Covid has cost everyone in some way!

But it is an interesting thought to consider what an equitable distribution of financial effects might look like and if/how it could be achieved.

Often those least able to absorb or cope with financial hits are those that receive them. The low paid and young have been disproportionately hit by redundancy and furlough and uncertainty. The more affluent can often absorb or have the resources to adapt their lives so the hits are less devastating. Sometimes those who can absorb any financial hit (such as heating bills) object strongly and feel that someone else, anyone else should pay.

Whether it is the individual firm/employer role to try to mitigate the impacts on those less able to absorb increased costs, or to be in a position to make that judgement is debatable. I’m of the view tgat this is a government responsibility not the individual employer. Government needs to plug the gaps where crises create hardship. They might rule that employers must take certain actions and then employers must do so. However I don’t see it as the job of the employer to spot those who might find heating bills tricky, to then target additional help to those people.

Asking an employer to consider this issue is fine. (And it wasn’t you I was referring to in terms of saying there had been no savings in travel etc - someone else posted fairly extensively about their personal situation)
It makes many people feel uncomfortable as an issue - that’s clear from this thread. Quite where employers responsibilities lie and cease to exist isn’t entirely clear with regard to working from home vs office working in terms of costs but in my view aren’t determined by personal need but need to be uniform.

I suspect new contracts will contain a clause to say the salary includes any expenses incurred whilst working from home or states a set fee will be paid for this, to avoid confusion. This does not mean those employed before working from home became the new necessity are automatically entitled to payments or not.

And as an aside, this week I saw an email from the employer to workers of a large organisation. Workers travelling for work usually use hire cars paid for by work but have recently been using own private cars for safety. Some had attempted to claim for increased insurance costs of converting policies to include work travel insurance - they were reminded that their mileage allowance includes and covers all costs such as insurance, depreciation...and no further claim could be made. For simplicity in future I do think contracts will spell out what equipment will be provided to those working from home and that additional costs are to be borne by the employee. As this is new for many roles, of course it’s not in existing contracts and uncertainties have emerged, so it’s never wrong to enquire, but I wouldn’t expect most employers to foot the bill for things like heating the home.

WombatChocolate One of the major points of grievance at my company is that it tends to be people in higher paid jobs that are saving on things like travel, work clothes and buying lunches. The lower paid employees nearly all live close to work (many walk or cycle) and bring in packed lunches. So saying (as the company has) that it won't offer payment in lieu of increased expenses because the majority are saving money in other ways, is missing the actual point that it's the people that can least afford it that are being most badly hit.

This is very similar to the case of all the high level managers in their home offices with lots of space not understanding that wfh is very different if you're having to work from your kitchen table with your children coming in and out constantly. Or you live in a room in a shared house and have to sit on your bed.