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.

Peepo, anyone who charges time to clients has to record their time.

Peepo, anyone who charges time to clients has to record their time.

So what's to stop anyone working from home (or, frankly, in the office) saying they worked X number of hours on X project when they didn't? I can write reports in half a day when it would take some people a full day (to the exact same standard). I could easily say it took me a full day when it didn't. That would apply whether I was WFH or not.

BTW I do freelance consultancy work for clients. I charge them for the project, not the hours worked.

@Rhinothunder

Ps for those who maintain that the commute is the issue, you need to move closer to your workplace!!

Where you live is literally not your employers responsibility/ problem

Unfortunately I can’t afford to live in London so I live outside, where I can afford it. As my employer is unwilling to pay me more, I’m not sure what you expect me to do. Set up a cardboard box outside the office? Not to mention my DP’s job is where we live, so I guess I should ditch him and find somebody who lives nearer my office.

Honesty. It's effectively theft and, in my line of work, you could be struck off.

Also you want to provide a good service at a good price so you get repeat work.

In practice, my experience is that people tend to under-record their hours rather than pad them (which is also a problem). You would be out the door immediately if you were padding.

But just wait for the MN mantra of "it's the manager's fault..."

TBH if staff are allowed to get away with that kind of crap, it’s partly on the manager.

For example, I had a team member try to continue using our org’s very generous flexibility from early in the pandemic over the summer and into the autumn for her toddler, because her childminder had reduced operations.

It was made clear to her that childcare was open and available and she had a choice between finding alternative childcare or taking unpaid leave. She found a nursery.

If people aren’t meeting their targets and expectations, there are consequences. We are a pretty generous and flexible employer but there are boundaries and part of maki g it equitable is coming down like a ton of bricks if people are taking the piss.

And part of that is setting really clear expectations of what is and isn’t ok.

I do find it slightly ironic that my company constantly bangs on about us needing to be "innovative" and always looking to improve things, yet want us to return to the old way of working (back in office) ASAP. Full-time office work, where it is not genuinely necessary for the role, is an archaic concept.

Just because something has been the way it has for decades, doesn't mean it is the best way. In fact, most of the time it almost certainly isn't. If we "have" to go back to the office, why not go back to the period where men could be openly paid more than women and people could be rejected outright because of their skin colour?

Old Good, just as new isn't always better. The best option is never a one-size-fits-all one.

@peepopeepopeepo

Peepo, anyone who charges time to clients has to record their time.

So what's to stop anyone working from home (or, frankly, in the office) saying they worked X number of hours on X project when they didn't? I can write reports in half a day when it would take some people a full day (to the exact same standard). I could easily say it took me a full day when it didn't. That would apply whether I was WFH or not.

People work on the basis of trust

Which most employees do as well.

@WhatWillSantaBring

But your quality of life, the easing of your parental guilt etc are not the concern of the business that pays your wages? Commuting time is also not relevant to your employer

But they absolutely should be relevant. Happy employers are more productive. You can pay them less. Commuting time (especially on subsidised public transport) is wasted productivity time and TERRIBLE for the environment, so is a socialised public cost, which we all pay for (including employers) in the form of shittier public services and higher taxes.

Also true. A big push on work/life balance and mental health in our company. Happy employees, productive employees.

Also lest not forget the substantial overhead savings achieved by closing offices.

Maybe I'm lucky our company only seems to view the positives and it's clearly working for them, because this is something they started the move toward over 4 years ago now.

@peepopeepopeepo

Peepo, anyone who charges time to clients has to record their time.

So what's to stop anyone working from home (or, frankly, in the office) saying they worked X number of hours on X project when they didn't? I can write reports in half a day when it would take some people a full day (to the exact same standard). I could easily say it took me a full day when it didn't. That would apply whether I was WFH or not.

Trust? Not wanting to commit fraud? Professional ethics? Your job may bill by the project but many professional functions bill by the hour because work doesn’t operate on the basis of discrete projects or project tasks.

@80caloriesofbiscuitplease

Crap employees are always going to be crap. The colleague who would never go to the wards and help nursing staff struggling with setting up a webcam and speaker for a meeting won't start doing it if you make her come into the office. The one who has three hour phone calls to her boyfriend during work time will still do that, she'll just go to the bathroom or go for ten thousand vape breaks. Getting people back in the office doesn't make people better employees, it just means the rest of us know about it and can become slowly more resentful.

It makes it easier to deal with unless you work in the sort of place where they just let that sort of thing go.

Someone having 3 hr phone calls at work should be warned about their behaviour and if they don't improve then they should be disciplined. Totally unfair to other staff if they are allowed to get away with it.

@CovoidOfAllHumanity

I dispute that it's all 'middle class jobs' that can wfh. I can't imagine a more soul destroying work environment than a call centre. Lots of people complain of how horrible they are to work in Why can't those people wfh if that's more comfortable for them? They are subject to a crazy level of monitoring anyway via recorded calls and metrics it would be easy to see if they were 'productive' Why do they all need to get herded into an office to do that job when all they need is a phone line and some IT?

Why do people 'dealing with the public in any capacity' have to be doing that from an out of home office among not an in home one? I can't understand the logic or see how I would necessarily tell the difference

When I have contacted my bank (the only call centre I ever really use) their service has been the exact same amount of shit as it was before. The excuse has changed but the wait times haven't as far as I can tell. You had to wait for ages and go through endless stupid messages before and you still do now. Online services are lots better these days too. I sorted my driving licence renewal, tax return issues and insurance all online with no need to call anyone.

I've found the wait/service worse from bank, power supplier, GP to name just a few.

It's really telling that people are pulling up 'lazy' people working from home but not manager's for not correctly doing their job.

You don't stop managing people because they are remote and if employees are taking the piss, it's up to the company to do something about it. Pulling everyone in because you know some people mess about is really poor management - like telling people what time they need to take their lunch because one person takes the piss rather than just sorting the individual out.

It is also not very inlusive of neurodiverse people to bill by the hour. I have ADHD and my brain doesn't work that way.

@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.

Then the more senior employees need to be in four days too, otherwise who are they learning off?

@Brian9600

We're going back to a compulsory 4 days in the office, one day from home if you want it. And of course people can apply for flexible working in the normal way and use their experience over the last year as evidence for why their application should be allowed.

All that said, I think WFH was always going to be a short term solution. People were able to work effectively from home because of existing goodwill and relationships created in the office. That won't last forever. It's also been awful for new joiners and for junior staff who learn a lot simply from being around their colleagues.

I keep reading about people who've moved somewhere remote in lockdown and are now outraged that they're expected to turn up at work. What did they think was going to happen?

Spot on! I also think that salaries will, and should, be impacted. If your city salary reflects the fact that employees had either an expensive commute or a huge mortgage, then why should people be paid the same to work from home?

I also think that salaries will, and should, be impacted. If your city salary reflects the fact that employees had either an expensive commute or a huge mortgage, then why should people be paid the same to work from home?

This is very true, and I think it will help my organisation (SE but not central London) quite significantly in being able to draw on a much wider talent pool.

However as someone who worked in central London for many years, the location salary differential - when you looked at the comparison with similar or identical jobs outside the capital - wasn't that great and certainly not enough to compensate for the higher cost of living. Increasingly I think talent and skill scarcity demands the premium, rather than location.

I also think that salaries will, and should, be impacted. If your city salary reflects the fact that employees had either an expensive commute or a huge mortgage, then why should people be paid the same to work from home?

Wages have stagnated for years compared to house prices and rent levels. So I think you’ll find that you are talking nonsense.

Average wage vs house price now compared to 20/30 years ago is a very very different ratio.

As if employers factor in the cost of living into salaries 😂😂😂😂😂😂

@Brian9600

We're going back to a compulsory 4 days in the office, one day from home if you want it. And of course people can apply for flexible working in the normal way and use their experience over the last year as evidence for why their application should be allowed.

All that said, I think WFH was always going to be a short term solution. People were able to work effectively from home because of existing goodwill and relationships created in the office. That won't last forever. It's also been awful for new joiners and for junior staff who learn a lot simply from being around their colleagues.

I keep reading about people who've moved somewhere remote in lockdown and are now outraged that they're expected to turn up at work. What did they think was going to happen?

Exactly this 👏

This! It’s so sad that people talk about going back to before as if it’s the only way because that’s how it was before! I mean people didn’t used to have weekends off work but hey look at us now!!!

There used to be half day closing, everything shut on a Sunday and zero hours meant cash in hand not a legal contract.

Wages have stagnated for years compared to house prices and rent levels. So I think you’ll find that you are talking nonsense.

You are actually. The rise in house prices is due to the commodification of housing rather than seeing them as homes. Buy to rent and second homes have caused massive problems.It’s not properties worth more because people do them up. It’s buying up of the cheap homes for investments so the less wealthy have no choice but to rent.

You are actually. The rise in house prices is due to the commodification of housing rather than seeing them as homes. Buy to rent and second homes have caused massive problems.It’s not properties worth more because people do them up. It’s buying up of the cheap homes for investments so the less wealthy have no choice but to rent

So…… there was the implication that employers set wages in line with house prices. So I’ll think you’ll find that my point still stands.

@Iggly

You are actually. The rise in house prices is due to the commodification of housing rather than seeing them as homes. Buy to rent and second homes have caused massive problems.It’s not properties worth more because people do them up. It’s buying up of the cheap homes for investments so the less wealthy have no choice but to rent

So…… there was the implication that employers set wages in line with house prices. So I’ll think you’ll find that my point still stands.

They don’t set wages to offset house prices 100% but there is an element of London weighting. In the graduate scheme I was part of London roles got an extra 2K a year compared to other locations just by virtue of location. Also I knew NHS staff having a cost of living allowance component to their salaries.

In the graduate scheme I was part of London roles got an extra 2K a year compared to other locations just by virtue of location.

Wages have stagnated (this is factual). London weighting does exist but it doesn't actually make up the difference in living costs for many.

Anyone who moved home to a remote location, expecting wfh to be permanent, without having that confirmed by their employer is an idiot.

Some people are going back to office full time, some have adopted a hybrid, others are now WFH full time.

Good thing is some places seem more open to WFH when that may have not previously been the case.

There was no guarantee that WFH was going to be a long-term thing and clearly some are now very comfortable and are in shock or will be in shock should their employer demand some days in the office.

As a result, some may now choose to resign and look for a different role elsewhere that now better suits their needs, which you may want to start doing.

Not everyone has been as productive as they claim or like to think WFH... that I have experienced all too well.