To refuse to go back to the office

[tillytalks]

I’m currently on mat leave and due back to work on the 15th March.

I work in an office with 12 other people.
At present everyone is in the office.

There is no reason why people can’t work from
home, and I’m pretty sure the reason is that management are the type that wouldn’t trust staff to work at home.
It’s a family run business and the owners are quite precious.

I’m really careful, I don’t mix, I follow the rules to the letter.

I’m 34, have mild asthma and I also have a high BMI (more than 30 but less than 40)
I’m working out and eating well so I’m hoping this will reduce.

Even still, I just don’t feel comfortable sitting in an office all day with 12 other people.
The office isn’t big. It’s a long room, and although we can distance, I feel like it would still be crowded.

I know that I wouldn’t be given any preferential treatment to work from home, but I haven’t asked so can’t be too sure.

I’ll be working 3 days per week and my son (who will be 13m) will be in a nursery.

I’m also aware that my son being in nursery puts me at risk which is something else I’ve been thinking over.

AIBU to not want to return?

Your employers are being arseholes. Even our woefully incompetent prime minister says everyone who can work from home should and that's not likely to change before march.

However this govt dont seem to be interested in punishing employers for needlessly endangering staff only people who go for a walk with a friend etc.

Join a union? For advice from acas? Find out if you can report them to anyone? Ask your go for a fit note saying you can wfh?

@Lindtballsrock

Op you still haven’t answered the question re childcare if you were working from home, would you still use the nursery (which seems to be a bigger risk than the office) or would you expect to work and supervise/entertain your baby simultaneously? I know parents of older children are in that position but for very young children childcare is still available but it’s not clear whether you would intend to use it?

@Lindtballsrock

I haven’t figured that out yet.

I wouldn’t be able to watch my son and work.

I’ve read so much that says children of my sons are are less likely to transmit the virus.
He will only be 13m when he goes to nursery and he will be in the baby room which will be with 8 other babies 0-15m and 3 members of staff.

If my son

[quote WoolyMamamoth]@TitsOot4Xmas actually asthma and a BMI over 30 puts you in the clinically vulnerable category.[/quote]
Actually it does not, if she was ECV she would of been sent a letter telling her to shield, she is purely adding bits in to try get us to all agree with her.

[quote Chipsandchesses]@emilyfrost yes, and the employer should follow those guidelines. Or do you not agree?[/quote]
It’s irrelevant whether you or I agree. It’s not law, it’s guidance, so regardless of anyone’s opinion, it’s their choice.

Doctors don’t necessarily know people’s BMI so there may be people who have a BMI that is enough to make them clinically vulnerable to covid but haven’t been informed.

Mild asthma and obesity dont put you in the ECV list.

I've noticed lately there's a lot of confusion over this. The initial vague category of "vulnerable" has been effectively dropped as we've learned more and know that many of the common conditions on it (including asthma unless its severe) dont put you at significantly increased risk. The actual ECV list is really much more brief - a lot of people in the original generic "vulnerable" list seem to expect extra accommodations to apply to them when actually under the current guidance there's almost zero provision for that.

Op is not ECV. Her opinion is that she can do her job from home. Her employer does not share that view. Of course its worth a chat to see if OP can make any changes that make home working more feasible/acceptable to the employer, but if her employer does not think her job can be done from home, it really is up them. Op could then explore options like taking some unpaid leave.

and the employer should follow those guidelines. Or do you not agree?

Many employers will believe that they are following the guidelines, because ‘reasonable’ is open to interpretation.

The difficulty here is that we are discussing whether the OP is BU based on a purely hypothetical situation.

Yes - we are in lockdown now. But come March 15, will we still be? And if we aren't, what are peoples opinions then?

The economy is struggling. Businesses are struggling. As long as the OP works, she gets paid, but that's not the same for her employer. It's quite clearly a small business with 12 people in the office, so not a huge multinational corporation. I don't see anyone spare a thought for the owners who we can only assume have implemented "covid safe" office provisions in an attempt to keep their business as productive as it can be. Yes the OP may be able to do her job from home, but does she do it with the same level as productivity? I wfh in my previous job a few days a week. Was I as productive as I was in the office? Of course not. I have many friends wfh part of the week now and bar one, they've admitted they're not as productive at home as frankly it's hard to garner the same motivation as going into the office and sitting next to colleagues doing the same work.

Let's spare a thought for the employer who is also struggling during these times and is trying to keep their business afloat. I very much doubt their decision to keep everyone office based is due to them wanting to spread the virus further. They've taken necessary precautions and as far as the OP has shared, nobody in the office has caught COVID yet as a result of going into the office.

We won't be in lockdown forever, at what point do we say ok - it's safe to go back to work now?

Why are they so keen to get people into the office anyway?
If they don't trust their staff to work at home, then they need new staff

If they don't trust their staff to work at home, then they need new staff

Many jobs aren’t done as well from home.

I’ve sat on hold quite a few times listening to messages asking me to ‘bear with us while our staff work from home during these exceptional times’.

That might not be an unreasonable request, but for many companies it will simply result in lost business.

If the government wants businesses to change working practices to reduce COVID spread, realistically at this point they need to spell out what they must do and stop vaguely suggesting what they should do.

YANU The rules are, we must work from home if we can. Is it possible you could print this rule (from a Gov./official website) and show your employer?

Also, how do your colleagues feel? Surely they'd rather not put themselves at risk either. Would they support you in this if you approached your employer together?

Bella43 if you print off the rules you will see that the rule is that people must work from home if that is ‘reasonable’.

So what happens to the work that can’t be done from home? Just forget it?

TitsOot4Xmas If it’s work that can’t be done from home then it can’t be done from home. I didn’t say just forget it.

Or staff having disciplinary and sickness hearings on their own over video call, because their union rep and the manager couldn’t be with them.

What? This is technophobia. Neo-Luddism. There’s no reason why meetings can’t be done by video call. Most meetings are now and you get used to it and adapt. Staff can have pre meetings with their union rep and manager as well as have them as part of the meeting. You don’t literally need to be in the same physical room. You do know you can have more than 2 people on a video call right?

There’s no reason why meetings can’t be done by video call.

If your staff have adequate wi-fi

@theantsgomarchin

It's quite clearly a small business with 12 people in the office

I’ve clarified this in several of my previous posts.

It is NOT a small business with only 12 employees.
The Company has 100+ staff.

There are 12 employees in my office not in the building there are several several departments within the building.

It's hard returning from maternity leave as a new mum, lots of anxieties. With Covid pandemic in the mix it's even scarier.

Op, I think these are understandable anxieties

But, you aren't CEV, shielding group otherwise you'd have had 4+ shielding letters by now over 2020. A chat with your GP won't change that, it's decided elsewhere in nhs.

You can ask for "return to work" meeting with Covid risk assessment based on you being group 6 (generally vulnerable) but if work can show it's essential (given other staff aren't wfh then its suggestive they will) and that office is Covid secure, then it may be best to use this time to get advice from union/acts, try to settle your anxieties and try to negotiate a day /week wfh at appropriate stage and position of your desk etc or what it is that worries you.

As you said you can't work with toddler at home, your DS will need to go to nursery regardless.

Things may be different come your March 2021 return date as current lockdown doesn't yet provisionally go up to that date.

What PPs are harshly saying, is that your case is no different to 10s of millions of others with vulnerable group health problems in U.K. that fall under group 6. Make sure you take your becotide (you said brown?) inhaler religiously as prescribed. I remember reading some research indicating statistically that general asthmatics (not CEV group ) appeared to be afforded some protection from experiencing severity of Covid symptoms, as they were already taking inhaled steroid preventers. It's too early to know these things for sure, as research works slowly and lots of variable are involved, but it gives a more mixed picture.

If your staff have adequate wi-fi

Of course. Or a connection via a work mobile. If they don’t then they can’t.

There was review done debating some of this research

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/early/2020/04/20/13993003.01009-2020

** .. (talks about increased risks to those with reduced lung resilience but then also says...)

Conversely, there is evidence to suggest that taking ICS (inhaled corticosteroids) may be beneficial in dealing with virus infections, specifically those due to coronavirus. Pre-treatment of human respiratory epithelial cells in vitro with budesonide, in combination with glycopyrronium and formoterol, has inhibitory actions on coronavirus HCoV-229E replication and cytokine production [19]. Furthermore, early, not yet peer-reviewed data, suggest ciclesonide blocks SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid replication in vitro [20] and inhibits SARS-CoV-2 cytopathic activity [21] which may be of great relevance to reducing the risk of developing of COVID-19 in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection or reducing the severity of the disease.

So advice is take your inhalers as prescribed if asthmatic and that it is a mixed picture.

* BMI (more than 30 but less than 40) *

That is quite a range you’ve given there!

@Sethy38

* BMI (more than 30 but less than 40) *

That is quite a range you’ve given there!

@Sethy38

Gives you an idea... 🤷🏻‍♀️

@ParlezVousWronglais

So what happens to the work that can’t be done from home? Just forget it?

TitsOot4Xmas If it’s work that can’t be done from home then it can’t be done from home. I didn’t say just forget it.

Or staff having disciplinary and sickness hearings on their own over video call, because their union rep and the manager couldn’t be with them.

What? This is technophobia. Neo-Luddism. There’s no reason why meetings can’t be done by video call. Most meetings are now and you get used to it and adapt. Staff can have pre meetings with their union rep and manager as well as have them as part of the meeting. You don’t literally need to be in the same physical room. You do know you can have more than 2 people on a video call right?

Of course, and the vast majority of meetings are conducted that way. But personally and professionally I don’t think it is appropriate/acceptable as a human to have someone at risk of losing their job through a disciplinary/sickness process to do so on their own via video call.

Last year a functional alcoholic in a manual role (minimal IT skills) was caught drinking on site. How would you conduct the meeting to suspend them without being able to see/smell how drunk they were because you’re WFH and they can’t use Teams?

Sometimes meetings do have to be face to face to give the employee the best chance.

BMI 30 you have just tipped in to obesity

BMI 39 you are on the verge of being morbidly obese

Why include the word reasonably if the intention is that it can be stretched beyond any credible meaning by an employer?

Let's say Employee X's duties are to draft eight documents a day to satisfy a defined list of criteria. They must also be contactable within defined core hours. If they do all this from home, then what would the employer's grounds be for saying they cannot reasonably work from home?

You can see on this thread that many people have an intractable view that working from home is unproductive. The view may not be logical. I don't know why some posters seize on the employer's refusal as proof that the OP is wrong.

Whether or not it's legal or OP has the leverage to actually refuse to go into the office, if she genuinely can fulfil her work to a good standard at home then I think her employers are acting unreasonably. I'd find it hard working for managers impervious to reason.

OP said she's vulnerable due to her weight and asthma, but is still sending her kid to nursery, so is prepared to take that risk

Actually OP's been very clear that she's not at all comfortable with sending DS into nursery. Again we can't know if this would apply to her too, but many employers, based on long experience of seeing the "arrangements" disappear once a WFH agreement was in place, might well expect this to be just one more case

And the answer to "what happens to the work which can't be done from home?" is quite simple - they often expect those who are in the workplace to take the extra load, as the many threads from those expected to do exactly that show