To ask what ‘work from home if you can’ means?

[Merryoldgoat]

I work in an independent school. I’m back office staff and from March until September worked absolutely fine from home with the odd visit to school. We (back office staff) all went back as normal in September.

My office isn’t Covid safe. My assistant and I sit within two metres of each other, there is no protection etc.

My assistant wants to work from home. I don’t especially.

I have zero issue with her working from home - she’s diligent, able and thorough. I like going in because I just find it easier to be on the ground but it’s personal preference.

My manager (effectivemy COO) doesn’t want us to work from home. Fine for me, not great for my assistant who is quite unhappy about it.

The basic reason my manager doesn’t want home working is that some other staff are NOT effective at home, and that he feels it’s divisive as there are probably only 6-8 people who can work effectively from home.

I’ve told my boss I need to think about the way forward - we are butting heads on this.

I think that if he wants us to work in the office it needs to be made properly Covid safe. Otherwise he should facilitate a rota for us or allow us to work from home.

YABU - you work in a school - deal with it and go in as normal despite your roles being easy to do from home

YANBU - your manager should facilitate home working, a rota or make your office Covid secure before expecting you in as normal.

To clarify again - I’m happy to work in school. I like being there and I like the space from home.

In case it’s relevant I’m a Head of Finance, my assistant is an accountant.

OP I totally understand that. On that basis you could make a case for your 'unit' and the school do this on a unit by unit basis. So you can explain that the school can work on the basis that each unit would prepare their own case - if it looks like it should be a 'right' the school will have a problem.

But if it's 'we have evaluated hr (or whatever your dept is) and there will be a 50/50 split wfh which will be managed within the unit and we will work with other depts to evaluate each on a case by case basis' then they can make it work. Each unit makes its own case for who does and doesn't.

Essentially you are separating each dept not treating the back office as one big dept. And as you have set the precedent of 50/50 wfh in your dept they have more ability to manage the others and not have all wfh and not working.

I must say as well, if I were a teacher or doing another job that required me to be physically present in a workplace, I'd be fucked off if my risk of covid was potentially being increased because management weren't prepared to actually manage. It's in the interests of everyone who works in the school to keep the numbers down as low as possible.

"Performance management isn’t unfair. It isn’t disciplinary. It’s working on aspects of your performance and giving you support to improve them."

It may start with help and training, but can quite quickly move to disciplining. That's what I've seen of 'performance management' anyway.
It's not my fault I can't concentrate at home and I never claimed I could when I took the job so why should I end up with a disciplinary if I can't work in the same way at home?

It’s in the interests of those who HAVE to be on site that the numbers on site are minimised. You and your assistant should mostly wfh. You could go in occasionally if essential.

Nor do I think it is a good argument, to be clear. But I know it has been used in schools to justify keeping office staff on site. Not mine, thankfully, but others that I know.

As an aside, the Performance Management issue really gets my goat.

One of the people in question moved from my dept when I started - if they’d stayed with me I’d have made very big changes to the way they worked. They’re inefficient and whilst I like them very much on a personal level, they do not work in the most effective way.

It's pretty clear cut - either the work environment is covid safe in which case staff can legitimately be asked to be in, whether or not they technically could work from home, or it is not covid safe in which case it needs to be made covid safe or staff allowed to work from home if possible. Regardless of what the government says (which is contradictory and keeps changing), not following the above can definitely lead to an employment law claim.

@CakeRequired

I think he should let the staff who do work from home well wfh. The ones who don't should learn from their mistake of being lazy. It's their own fault.

Less staff in the office should mean you're all protected better.

This. At my place of work we're entitled to put in a request to WFH but it must be backed up by proven equal or higher productivity while doing so. Those that can't prove it are turned down.

It's not my fault I can't concentrate at home and I never claimed I could when I took the job so why should I end up with a disciplinary if I can't work in the same way at home?

Unless you have childcare issues that prevent you concentrating, then you are being unreasonable.

It is your fault you can't concentrate at home. It's something you can adapt to.

I've worked from home part time for years and years.

what's actually stopping you concentrating?

Your assistant. Your decision. Tell him what you've decided.

And then mark out the socially distanced safety zone around your desk. And tell him to provide hand sanitiser for by the door too.

But the man's a complete twonk. Less people at the school means more space and less chance of spread.

Those who can, should. But that doesn't mean that your boss needs to put up with a second rate job being done while people work from home.

Your assistant should certainly be able to. Other than anything else, it means your office only has you in it, making it safer for you.

With regards to other staff, they should be told that they can work from home but only if they complete the work that needs to be done in a timely manner.

But the one thing that isn't up for the debate, for certain, is that all workspaces should be covid safe as much as is practical. That, your boss has a duty to ensure.

Surely just not being able to work well from home isn't a reason to performance manage people? When I was wfh I felt as if I wasn't quite as effective or productive as when in the office, and often felt unmotivated. I am not shit at my job and now am back in the office am back to normal levels of motivation and effectiveness. I didn’t need to be performance managed, I needed not to be wfh.

I wasn't as effective wfh because wfh really didn't suit me and because of the whole lockdown situation - I was incredibly lonely, hated "living at work", found it very difficult not having regular interaction with colleagues e.g. to bounce ideas off each other, and was in tears at my "desk" on a regular basis. If people are not as effective wfh, but were perfectly OK in the office, allow them back to the office.

If one of my team wasn't as productive when working from home, then yes, that would make me think about how I could better manage their performance. If they were crying on work time, clearly I would be looking to provide them with additional support rather than trying to discipline them.

Performance managing people doesn't always mean trying to manage them out. Sometimes it simply means giving them additional support, whether on a temporary or a permanent basis. I encourage my team to tell me when they're struggling and to look out for each other too, and my (virtual) door is always open for a video chat if they need a friendly ear to let off steam. They know they can approach me either as a manager to sort things out, or just someone to listen.

If I became aware one of my team was struggling, I would offer regular catch ups (video if they wanted) and debrief their work with them to identify if anything in their workload was making things particularly tough for them. I would then look to offer additional one-to-one training, or perhaps reallocate responsibilities depending on whether that would help/if it was possible.

I could also look at adjusting their hours if I thought that would help - some of my team take extended lunch breaks at strange hours so they can nap when their babies are napping. As long as the core hours are covered by someone and I'm getting my contracted hours out of everyone, I'm happy to be flexible.

If any manager doesn't notice or care one of their direct reports is in tears on a regular basis, frankly, the manager deserves to be fired rather than the direct report.

I would have sympathy for someone whose performance declined because they were no longer able to work in the environment they expected when the took the job, and ended up suffering for it. Not everyone has a setup at home that's conducive to work. That's evidently not what's gone on here, since the performance management predates covid, but I can see that it could be an issue in some workplaces. Still, that's why it's so vital that people who are able to work from home with no downside other than a manager having to manage are facilitated to do so.

The teachers, or some at least, may find this divisive. And how is that your problem? Good job front line hospital staff recognise support staff wfh benefits everyone...

@Gwenhwyfar

"Those who can’t work well from home need to be performance managed, and quickly.

This is completely accurate and he should manage this properly."

I don't think that's fair. Home working was never part of my job description or contract and I never claimed to be able to do it effectively.

Then presumably you're happy to work in the office? The problem seems to be people who want to work from home, knowing they don't have to do anything like a real day's work.

@Fluffalo

The people who aren’t working well from home have general Performance issues. It’s not about the home working but on the premises they’re easier to manage

That's a different issue really, I would say crappy management is the same whether someone works from home or is in the office. If they feel they can micro manage them more on the premises rather than address the issues themselves then again, poor management.

There is poor management but there is also poor performance by so many people at work. It's crazy not to admit that some people will take the piss if they work from home.

As hollow talk correctly says the problem is those that fight to wfh knowing they don't have to do the work. Or maybe they have their children at home and can't? Those who are trustworthy and effective wfh who want to should.

The rest shouldn't. Along with those who don't want to. So the school needs to find a way to set that up without it being a legal battle. As for the teachers finding it divisive.. I don't believe that for a second. Teachers are well aware many people wfh.

"Then presumably you're happy to work in the office? The problem seems to be people who want to work from home, knowing they don't have to do anything like a real day's work."

Yes, I'm back in the office on every day that I can. I had to change jobs for this to be possible though and I'm still worried that numbers allowed in the office will be cut back again.
In my previous job we weren't allowed to work at the office even if we really wanted to and would have been alone there.

"what's actually stopping you concentrating?"

Wrong environment. I get distracted by 'home' things. I get anxious and very down with nobody to talk to.
I never took on the job intending to work from home so I don't see how the terms of my contract can be changed unilaterally and be expected to work the same.

@Merryoldgoat

Are there are only 6-8 people who have the right equipment etc to work from home, or are there are only 6-8 people your manager trusts to actually work from home?

It’s not so much about equipment but roles.

Essentially Finance, HR, Admissions and Marketing can work from home but Reception staff, ICT and also PAs can’t.

I think that he (and The Board) are also worried that some teachers are very anxious (understandably) and find it divisive in that respect too.

Well that's just tough luck! The fact you work in a school makes no different one way or another - it's just a fact of life that some job roles are different. It would be the same with the police, you could have some admin staff or detectives with a specialism doing some work from home but your average response cop obviously couldn't!

The guidance is basically as it says on the tin "If you can work from home you should." It's very clear and it's strange for your boss to not follow it specifically because it might risk making some staff unhappy, but not following it is also making other staff unhappy AND breaching guidance/legislation. Your reception teacher might compare herself to your finance assistant but she should really be comparing herself to a reception teacher at another school - whom I find unlikely would be allowed to WFH. Soshe is being treated fairly within her job role.

Whereas if your finance assistance compared herself to a finance assistance in a bank or the local council it is very likely her equivalent would be allowed (indeed expected) to WFH so she is disadvantaged.

Would the ICT or teaching staff feel it appropriate for their wage to be reduced to match your finance assistant's if they want everything to be completely fair? Or would they accept, as adults, that different roles have different pay and different working conditions?!

If teachers want to WFH they need to get a different job. Teaching, unfortunately = in the classroom the vast majority of the time.

Well. I sent an email requesting a meeting first thing. He’s seen it and messaged saying we can talk today so I’ll update later once we’ve had a conversation.

@thevassal I hate to break it to you but that's exactly what happens. People who are customer facing in a non wfh role demanding to work from home, phoning acas and sending semi legal letters drafted by relatives saying they did over lockdown and so have the right to keep doing so as 'government guidelines say so'.

One wanted to do so because he got out of doing work he didn't like (anything to do with support/admin which we all do equally) and the other because she wanted to just do not much.

Managing it is unbelievably time consuming. You need to hire an hr solicitor and it's hours back and forth. Meanwhile the poor staff who are t like that are doing extra work and dealing with extra shit.

There is poor management but there is also poor performance by so many people at work. It's crazy not to admit that some people will take the piss if they work from home.

Of course they will, but again... this is why managers have to manage. It's part of the job. Some people like taking the piss. They are not confined to any one environment. If you don't like it, don't manage: I say this as someone who has managed, didn't enjoy it and isn't looking to do it again.

I have a degree of sympathy for anyone taking on a managerial role pre-Covid who didn't want or expect to be working in this way. However it's limited in the case of work that can be done offsite, because that's a phenomenon that was already well established long before this. So if you manage eg accountants or administrators, as this manager does, it was an issue that was liable to come up at some point: perhaps existing staff would want to do it, it might come up in recruitment, there might be pressure to allow it to save on office costs.

Nobody saw such blanket wfh coming now, in this way. But neither was the issue of wfh something that a person managing in this sort of field could realistically assume they could opt out of indefinitely either.

I voted YANBU.

As the accountant, does your colleague have to handle physical paperwork, such as receipts and expenses claims. If so, how will she receive these at home.

I imagine that parent bills will be very easy to handle at home.

When I worked in a school with a bursar plus accountant, teaching staff had zero interaction with the accountant. I can’t imagine that being fair to all staff is a big deal.

Are there concerns about her particular work ethic from home?

@JinglingHellsBells

It's not my fault I can't concentrate at home and I never claimed I could when I took the job so why should I end up with a disciplinary if I can't work in the same way at home?

Unless you have childcare issues that prevent you concentrating, then you are being unreasonable.

It is your fault you can't concentrate at home. It's something you can adapt to.

I've worked from home part time for years and years.

what's actually stopping you concentrating?

Well I worked pretty well from home as did my husband but major building works taking place did cause difficulties especially for my husband who needed it to be quieter fir meetings and lectures.