WFH, suddenly taken away, are we really just going back to the old way?

[80caloriesofbiscuitplease]

Today my (public sector) employer announced we were all expected to be back in the office, full time from a months time, with home working only to be used in emergencies.
I know that response to WFH has been mixed from other professionals and some employees have frankly been less productive from home. I would have been happy with one day per week from home as a compromise.
My argument is that there should be a consultation period where we could put forward our rationale for being able to maintain an aspect of home working. Also are we really going to go back to the old way, packed buses, packed trains, traffic, pollution, all for presentism?
I feel that we've seen another way, with happier employees, healthier employees and an improvement in the environment. I work in a grey concrete wasteland where I regularly sit at my desk all day without a break. At home I can open my doors, hear the birds, stroke my cat. My mental health has improved so much and that makes me a better employee. Today two of us were in the office and four were working from home. They really want to go back to six of us coming to work all day, every day to answer emails and input data which we could do from home?
I know I could look for another role but I like my job and I'm quite good at it. I don't want a role which is completely home based, but I feel saddened by the whole world going back to the way we lived before.
And yes I know some have worked out the house the whole way through. It's not a 'my life is harder' competition.

@IntermittentParps

It might be working well FOR YOU (or your some of colleagues). It doesnt mean it's working well for the office/new starters/in the long term. That poster actually says in the same post: 'why can't we look at it on an individual basis? Young people will choose to go in because of career progression etc. Some will because they prefer it.' Are you deliberately misunderstanding what she writes? She's clearly talking about a hybrid/flexible system.

Because let's say if only starters want to be in the office and all the people who have the experience want to wfh, then the starters won't be able to learn from those more experienced people. Which was the point in the first place.

What works well for an individual might not work for the company as a whole.

And sorry but I didnt get the OP wanted an hybrid system. her point right from the start was to say that wfh was 'taken away from her'.

If you work flexibly/part time from home, part time office, wfh hasnt been taken away from you.

@CrappyBirthday2Me

Don’t see why people should be getting London weighted salaries without having to live in London.

I’d reframe this and say that all the jobs previously closed off to those who can’t afford to live in or commute to London will be opened up to a diverse talent pool. How bloody brilliant! Then employers will have to work hard to actually be good employers and hardworking, talented people will have opportunities previously closed to them.

Exactly - there are very few jobs where London weighting covers the extra costs of housing in London and SE anyway.

As a PP observed employers have been over concentrating on London and big cities to the detriment of everywhere else.

@allihaveleft

I think it's about choice.

Some people need to get away from their screaming kids. Some people need to get away from their excessively chatty coworker

As for onboarding young employees, why can't they temporarily go in more frequently until that new employee has bedded in? A PP mentioned that junior employees go in 4 days a week.

There needs to also be the other staff in at the same time to mentor and train the younger employees. Not much point if they're in on their own, or the only other staff in that day are in different depts etc. You also lose the continuity if the young trainee is in 4 days per week, but is being trained/supervised by 4 different people on those 4 days meaning lots of wasted time, mixed messages, etc.

I trained "on the job" decades ago. I was trained/mentored by one person. That meant that I could develop very quickly as he knew what I'd done, knew how far he could push me, etc. I wouldn't have developed anywhere near as quickly if it had been a succession of different staff "training" me.

My job, in my mind, is the work I do, not the place I sit.

I joined my company about 2 years ago and I’ve never really felt comfortable in the office. It has a hot desking, clear desk policy, and there wasn’t enough desks for the number of people. They had lockers but not enough so I had to carry all my belongings backwards and forwards each day.

I always got in to work early and got the same desk, but my immediate colleagues could be anywhere else in the building. There’s only 6 or so of us that are in my team, doing my specific work out of 300 in the building, so it’s not like I could discuss my work with whoever I ended up sat next to.

I work on a number of different, short term projects and my clients are ofteninternational, so most of our work was done via video call anyway. I had to try and find meeting rooms to sit in for long calls so I didn’t annoy the people sitting next to me.

Since working from home my productivity has increased, I can take video calls and chat for hours without annoying anyone, I start work anytime between 6am and 9am depending on workload and I’m not governed by trains. I have my desk set up exactly as I want it, with all equipment to hand.

I appreciate that I am lucky with my home set up, I have no kids so that’s not a worry. It seems daft that I would consider reverting back to commuting, lugging all my stuff everyday, not having a desk to call my own, having to be conscious of others when on calls etc..

My company has not revealed its long term policies, but if they expect me back in the office 5 days a week for no reason other than presenteeism I will look for another job.

All of this can be done with hybrid working. Conversations and mentoring aren’t particularly different in person than on Zoom and any direct actual supervision that technology can’t handle can be done on the office days.

No it can't, none of the soft learning happens on Zoom because you wouldn't be on a call at the time the issue came up. Hybrid doesn't really help either because by definition, people won't be in the office at the same time.

Yes but it is equally important to have a diverse workforce in an organisation which is more likely to happen if flexibility is embraced. My DH has insisted on certain school drop offs and collections something that has come about due to him telling his workplace that he would have to pull his weight with the homeschooling. He is in a senior position so it may be easier for him to insist but I want my DC to enter a workplace knowing that if they do decide to have children this is not going to be the end of their career and that they can both be involved with their children on a daily basis.

Equally, local working hubs with interesting work would attract genuine diversity as the interesting jobs are generally the preserve of those that come from comfortable families as they can borrow the money for clothes, borrow the money for house share deposits or if living in a place that is commmutable, they can borrow thousands for an expensive season ticket. This means you are not always getting the best talent as the conditions of wealth exist.

How is an office closer to home more realistic than wfh?

Are we saying employers won't allow working from home but will provide everyone with local offices?

Or employers won't allow working from home, but will allow people to work from communal office space? That they will need to pay for?

As for the younger people, this in some ways make their lives better. Give it more balance.

Their bosses will need to change how they work and any half decent ones have changed how they mentor employees. They have covered this and put things in place to ensure the younger workers are getting opportunities and experience.

If you have a manager, who is crap and not mentoring or supporting your career, that's because they are a shit manager and would be I'm the office.

I know very few people who want to wfh and never leave the house. People generally, expect to go in some days, socialise have meetings and include the people they are mentoring.

It sounds to me that is the way it's been handled is your main gripe rather than the return to full time working from the office.

The tone and choice of words makes a big difference in how news like this goes down. They could have said it is our intention to return to full time office working once restrictions are lifted please complete this short questionnaire about what your ideal working situation would be. Even if they ignore the questionnaire entirely it makes people feel like they aren't being railroaded into something.

Also with the time frame, I think it would have gone down better if they had said from X date we expect everyone to start to return to the office and by 4 weeks from this date everyone will be working full time from the office. The switch from working in the office to the home took a bit of getting used to, I imagine that the same will be true in reverse. After 15 months I can't see how and extra few weeks to ease the transition could be harmful.

My office sent out a form last June asking what everyone's preferred preference is for the return. It is a lot easier to accept information that this against what you would like it you feel like you have had your chance to put your view across

@Goldenbear

I agree with the idea of embracing new ways of working, it is a bit unimaginative to have to return to work structures and cultures that actually 'didn't' work for many people. My 14 year old already questions the point of the commute his Dad was doing to London, the impact on the environment, that way of working doesn't resonate with him and I can see his generation proposing change and wanting a hybrid scenario with more of a 'life'.

I appreciate the issues for new starters and those who don't have good enough homes to work in but with all respect it is not just about 'young people', this level of flexibility has been hugely beneficial to many parents- IME these are the people that have the tacit knowledge in an organisation and they are in demand and needed for organisations to work effectively. They do have more bargaining power because of this and I don't think that flexibility is going to be given up easily. I have WFH job in info sec so not customer based and I have been able to do more work with the WFH option as I can quickly do the school run rather than leaving work an hour before collection time. Many of my female friends in jobs that are WFH or their own businesses have thrived as they are not constrained by the office hours. That is lots of talent back in the economy that perhaps before were thinking of quitting whilst their children were young as managing school/nursery and travelling to offices ages away could not be done.

This is anecdotal but my peers and DC'S friends parents are nearly all thriving with this new way of working. I think it is noticeable that this is largely due to the bigger role the fathers are playing in school drop off and collection, even collection from after school clubs ending at 6 which was not possible prior to the pandemic as many of them worked in London or travelled for work.

Don't you think it is a bit selfish to have benefitted from working with more experienced people but don't want to pass that on to the next generation? Those experienced people won't be working forever, a good business will be thinking of the future as well.

It might not be necessary for people to be in every day but I think older, more experienced staff, like me, should be in for 2 or preferably 3 days a week and it should be on a rota so there are experienced staff around every day.

No it can't, none of the soft learning happens on Zoom because you wouldn't be on a call at the time the issue came up. Hybrid doesn't really help either because by definition, people won't be in the office at the same time.

Or you can ensure people mix, so they are in at the same time as different people all the time.

In our allocated office there were 10 people from 2 teams who don't work in similar areas. 6 of who would travel all over the country, for their Job. So if everyone who travels was out and someone was on annual leave you could have 2-5 people in the actual office. So limited learning.

And that would be at least 3 days a week.

This is why, when we mentor people we take them to other offices, pre pandemic we would take them on zoom calls. Might be meeting someone for lunch or breakfast or on site. Giving them lots of experience, away from their actual desk. Or the office.

Those skills don't have to have have office environment.

If people are hybrid working, they could all come in the same days OR they may be mixing with more people as there's different people learning more skills as they being exposed to new people.

The communal offices are also a networking opportunity.

Don't think you can extrapolate that just because your organisation has been told to come back in that means going back to "normal" for everyone.

My work asked staff if they'd prefer to do half office and half WFH, or majority WFH and only access office if they need to (so in many cases never, others once or twice a month). 88% chose option two so that's what we're moving to, with the caveat that those who prefer to work in an office can do so all the time if they want.

I also do contractor work for another organisation, they also did a poll of staff, their results were people preferred to work 50/50 so that's what they will be moving to when restrictions ease.

Those are both public sector so it doesn't follow that just because your company has made one choice all others will do the same. I think we are in for a few years of experimenting - it may be that (as a pp said) staff leave places like yours to go to a job that does allow WFH, faced with a mass brain-drain those who are currently insisting on office based working might change their mind. Or productivity might decline in WFH based workforces so they go back to insisting on at least some days per office. It's possible that companies offering WFH as a standard 'benefit' might start paying less with the justification people don't need to pay for commutes etc.

With london-based public sector jobs there's also the question of london weighting - should people still get that if their jobs don't actually require them to be based in London any more? Why should person A who was based in the Kings Cross office but has now moved to Bournemouth get £4k more than person B who was always based in the Bournemouth office if they do the same role and both now WFH most of the time?

I found working from home vastly beneficial. In the office it is all open plan with the different teams shuffled around so not conducive to collaborative work.
My role involves being part of my team (all of those in the same position) and involved in specific projects where there is contributors from the different teams. It has been much easier to schedule video calls with my colleagues to discuss things and more people are brought into the conversation. In the office an ad-hoc comments would drive a conversation that others would benefit from contributing too but it often was only afterwards you were told in another ad-hoc comment. Now taking the minute to set up a video call or messaging thread allowed people to think about who else would benefit from the conversation and they get added from the start.

My role requires a desktop which meant I couldn't take it into meetings like other teams who only need a laptop. By working from home I now have both, the desktop in the office that I can access remotely as well as the laptop so I can contribute more in meetings

I think training can work well if it's structured properly. No young person spends 40 hours a week being trained, they would never get anything done. It could be an alternating rhythm - you do some work, then you sit with a tutor to review it.

In some ways it's better than hanging around waiting for a senior person to come back from a meeting (as I've had to do when I was junior - it sucks). Better to have someone make a commitment to train you without distractions at agreed times.

I've also worked internationally - boss abroad, all training done remotely. It worked brilliantly because people were committed, and reachable via phone and messenger.

I am a young/early career person, much rather wfh. If I have a question I just call or im someone. My manager and I im all day. It’s no more difficult to communicate at home than when we would sometimes not end up sitting together at the office due to hot desking.

Let your employer recruit the people desperate to cram themselves back into soulless buildings and commuter trains

Blimey, only the first page & already we have Peak MN.

No appreciation that millions are people are not so much desperate to cram themselves anywhere, as desperate to keep paying for a roof over their heads & food on the table.

And that WFH is only a privilege for those lucky enough to have a spacious & comfortable home. It's been a nightmare for many.

Or even that not everybody has a nice middle class office job, with the luxury of kicking off because they are secure enough to be able to complain to their employer. Try doing that on a zero hours contract.

I didn't say you shouldn't pass it on but why does that have to be done with the old culture of working which was IME and amongst my peers a real disadvantage once you started a family. Preserving a way of working that disadvantages many people, not just working parents of young children, is equally 'selfish' isn't it. I had my first child at 29, had a very good job but as I had to commute to london for an hour, I didn't return to that workplace and became SAHM, I know many women in particular that did the same, in fact all of the women at the organisation left to do more local part time jobs or be SAHMs for a bit. The part time local jobs did not make any use of their talent or education so you have lost that level of insight to pass on to New Starters anyway. Does this not matter as it is only women?

And people with disabilities or chronic illnesses who've finally had the flexibility they've needed for years.

@CrappyBirthday2Me

I notice how everyone who's jumped on my comment about young people has gone for the advantages of not needing a central home, but hasn't covered the lack of support, development, mentoring etc. All that stuff you just assimilate by being in the same room with experienced people, rather than through formal training. Things you will all have benefited from enormously in the past, but are incredibly resistant to doing for the next generations.

Even if you don't care about the individuals, your employers need it to happen for the future of the organisation.

All of this can be done with hybrid working. Conversations and mentoring aren’t particularly different in person than on Zoom and any direct actual supervision that technology can’t handle can be done on the office days.

Incidentally, there seems to be a bit of a myth about the ‘useful chats at the water cool’, and info ‘floating around the office’ when in reality most office time is people cracking on with their work or making small talk.

It’s weird that in the face of a climate crisis people think we shouldn’t find a better way to work than putting millions of cars on the roads every day. Picking up a phone, arranging a video call or even a walk or coffee with a colleague is not hard.

I think most people on this thread are in favour of hybrid working. Again it’s a nuanced question of implementation. One office a day month is so little that you might as well be considered a remote worker anyway. 4 office days a week is too much.

Hence the discussion of what we need the office for comes into play.

Being in an org that has had flexible working for a long time - there’s a marked difference in the quality of training. It’s not just about individual training (which is what you’ve covered).
In a roomful of people you can circulate between them and have multiple conversations. In a video call for the same only one person can speak.
In the office you can see what’s going on around you. I’ve managed to pop into interesting discussions, gotten a new role through someone I met in the cafeteria, etc. Also ‘small talk’ is essential for building relationships.

Also to add I’ve got some experience of working with remote teams - and the level of information transfer while higher compared to what I’ve seen on here still isn’t as much as in person training.

@allihaveleft

I think training can work well if it's structured properly. No young person spends 40 hours a week being trained, they would never get anything done. It could be an alternating rhythm - you do some work, then you sit with a tutor to review it.

In some ways it's better than hanging around waiting for a senior person to come back from a meeting (as I've had to do when I was junior - it sucks). Better to have someone make a commitment to train you without distractions at agreed times.

I've also worked internationally - boss abroad, all training done remotely. It worked brilliantly because people were committed, and reachable via phone and messenger.

I was thinking of learning things that aren't really taught in a formal setting. A bit of friendly advice from someone more experienced when they can see you are going a bit of track, watching how an experienced member of staff deals with a difficult situation. I'm not sure how you replicate that.

Also to add I think one day a week in the office is a good amount …

@ancientgran also watching how they do things - it’s very unnatural to schedule a call, have everyone get on it and watch someone else work.
If you’re sitting with them you can just roll your chair over when you see something going on.
You don’t know what you don’t know - with calls you can only get known unknowns answered.

I think hybrid working would cover the informal situations. I don't think formal training is necessarily what I meant, rather a rhythm of regular mentoring and reviewing of work done by new starters.

I don't have a spacious home, I think many on this thread have said the same. You can say it is a 'luxury' to demand better but is it? For change to happen, you do have to be proactive, be a pioneer in working practices in your organisation. I actually think it is not just about wealth it is a mindset. My parents weren't wealthy but they were political in the 60's and their generation brought about huge changes.

@80caloriesofbiscuitplease You are entitled to put in a statutory application for flexible working and you have a year of evidence in support of your case. I don’t understand why you aren’t doing this.