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.

And how depressing that must be for kids having to tip toe round their house and be quiet

If the adult is working in a room where they can shut the door (which I appreciate not everyone can), then no one has to tiptoe around. People walking around, talking normally, or having the tv on at a normal volume won’t disturb someone working in a different room.

@Womencanlift

And how depressing that must be for kids having to tip toe round their house and be quiet. Bad enough for a couple of hours after school but for the holidays too

I’m sure they coped when it was enforced during lockdown but if this is going to be full time then what a depressing memory that will be of their childhoods. Not being able to relax in their own home

And the “but I pay the mortgage” comments in 3,2,1……

Nah they don't have to tip toe at all. They have the whole house to play in. They relax plenty. No need for the faux concern

God there's some world-class straw-clutching going on here.

'Childhood memories will be ruined, ruined I say!'

Give over.

@Tealightsandd

From a customer and client perspective WFH has been terrible. Standards of service have significantly dropped.

But also the office based industries bring in billions and billions to the national economy. It's the same in other countries, and it's why the Bank of America has recommended people return to the office.

Teaslightsandd

I agree, I’ve also found WFH has meant standards of service are terrible. I’m not saying everyone should be in the office, but at least half the workforce should be available by phone on the office phone number, particularly in the public sector.

Yes, I've been in contact with both my insurance company and water company and both have a long message about people working from home and how the wait therefore might be longer - err why? If wfh is so good why is the customer impacted?

My kids are quieter than me, no loud music or noisy mates round (yet), they are 11&13 so I’ll give it a few years and I might be wanting to go back to the office, reading these posts!

@Wanttocry

And how depressing that must be for kids having to tip toe round their house and be quiet

If the adult is working in a room where they can shut the door (which I appreciate not everyone can), then no one has to tiptoe around. People walking around, talking normally, or having the tv on at a normal volume won’t disturb someone working in a different room.

And that is a massive IF - loads of people won’t have the luxury of a separate room

And the kids in that position will have had a shit lockdown experience as it is. As plenty of research has shown, the academic gaps between working and middle class children has widened during lockdown

As others have said there is a massive gulf opening between the have’s and have nots and it will continue if people are forced to continue to wfh because their employer wants to save costs

But there is such an “I’m alright jack!” attitude these days that it’s even pointless trying to reason with some people

How does preventing wfh for everyone improve the situation of someone who doesn’t have a decent place to use to work from home?

This isn’t about forcing people to wfh. It’s about allowing people who can and want to have more flexibility. It’s not great that not everyone can take advantage, but I don’t see that artificially preventing those who could helps anyone. In any case, a workspace that isn’t suitable for full-time wfh may be perfectly fine for a day or two a week.

@womencanlift what does that have to do with anyone else.

There's always been people who have more and have less.

When I was in a shitty situation flexible working was better for me. I ma in the same house now, with a desk set up in the corner. It's not spacious or luxurious. But it's functional.

Cutting commuting time meant I could recude my childcare bill. Which as a single mother was a big help. Ds was still at child care until 4pm. But there until 5-5.30pm when u had to commute because of traffic.

It made his day shorter which helped his mental health immensely. He is autistic so his hugely long days, were really impacting him.

The attitude I hate that is if you are on a low income or don't have a big a house, then wfh/hybrid s impossible. Like we are the borg.

But I don't actually think you care about people on low incomes or there being a gulf.

Theres always been huge gulfs. No one is saying all jobs would be working from home. But that flexibility makes life easier for everyone.

And also DS had a great lockdown experience. Because I have always worked flexibly. So I could spend time with him. I couldn't do his work, he also had to entertain himself, but he enjoys quiet time.

Everyone's lives are different, it's suits some and not others. And when has everyone had to live their life based on 'you can't because some people aren't able to

This debate drives me nuts, It seems to be a race to the bottom with a flurry of comments from those who can't work from home, so why should anyone else/ the "you should be grateful to have a job" mob and the "this was only temporary" crew.
It is obviously very personal to each individual job and I can understand that there are industries (especially customer service roles) where it will be important to get people back into the office. But equally why should the economy come before everyone's mental health. There are so many comments on here about how people were at breaking point pre the pandemic and this has clearly shown that there is more than one way of working, especially in certain industries.
My job has transferred perfectly to WFH, we have managed to scale up operations and management now want more from us but won't be giving us additional staff. We still don't know what is going to happen about going back into the office but it seems foolish to learn nothing from the last 18 months and just slide back into what has always been instead of looking to improve what was becoming unbearable for many.
a week or 2 ago there were 2 similar threads, one from a mum who was dreading going back into the office who was bluntly told to get on with it. Another from a lady who's DH was driving her nuts working from home and he was making as many excuses as possible to stay WFH and she wanted him back in the office. She was told she was unreasonable, that he might be worried about returning, stressed yadda yadda......it just seems like such a double standard.

I think the Government sector in particular is being very shortsighted.
Technology and access to this means there is far greater flexibility, and this should be an "option" to all employees. As someone that has worked from home for the last decade I did more travelling than being office based and put in crazy hours weekly. With the pandemic training and engagement has been easier to arrange as you just need to be online. Meetings that took weeks to confirm can be done almost immediately. Collaboration for industry groups have worked so well as we don't need to choose a location to meet and have some traveling a day and staying overnight to attend.
Flexibility will cover those that need to juggle being a primary carer to those that need to meet other responsibilities outside work. #flexappeal
WFH could mean more support for local businesses; buying lunch and running errands you leave until the weekend. And levelling up which is what the Government agenda is supposed to be about. Supporting local communities and hubs not making everything about the central business districts.
Also plays into the work life balance who needs a 3 hour round trip commute when that could in effect be working time?
I do want the option to be present have meetings & engage and I do think it ought to be an option to work around employees. Some people love being in the office and thrive on the engagement and being away from home as it isn't always peachy for everyone at home and you need a break!
Getting cars off the road and enabling parents to do a school walk [time] and walk to local shops will be a huge factor in reducing carbon emissions and meeting net zero targets.
The fear is empty offices, huge overheads, empty public transport and less money centrally.
So options are always a good thing. My understanding working with a lot of Gov departments is that up to a 3 day week will be expected in the office and 2 days from home initially. I do think the pandemic and the adaptations we have all made ought to be given a long-term view especially for women to get back to work and offer that flexibility.

@Womencanlift But there is such an “I’m alright jack!” attitude these days that it’s even pointless trying to reason with some people

My comment was not an “I’m alright jack” attitude because I have neither teenagers nor a separate room to work in. I was commenting on how ridiculous it was to say that all teenagers would have to “tip toe around” just because someone in the house is working.

But actually I don’t see why an attitude of “this works for me so I don’t mind it” is such a problem here? My company has moved to hybrid working, quite a few people I work with don’t like working from home so they go in every day and that’s fine for them. The selfish argument seems to the one saying everyone should be in the office because that suits some people. I don’t see anyone arguing that everyone should work from home just because it suits some but I have seen the reverse argued.

All this thread is about is what suits workers best. No consideration at all for what suits the business best. When it is, it's with the assumption that individual employee, regardless of their role, know what is best for the company, when it is obvious that their view is based on what suits them best.

No issue with people wishing that the business honoured what suits them best but it remains that the company has a right to make a decision that suits their business best, even if their rationale is not understood or accepted by the staff.

@vivainsomnia

All this thread is about is what suits workers best. No consideration at all for what suits the business best. When it is, it's with the assumption that individual employee, regardless of their role, know what is best for the company, when it is obvious that their view is based on what suits them best.

No issue with people wishing that the business honoured what suits them best but it remains that the company has a right to make a decision that suits their business best, even if their rationale is not understood or accepted by the staff.

The company I work for prefers us WFH. They have stripped the offices out and now have hotdesks and you have no need to go in if you don't want to.

The company I work for prefers us WFH
And that's a surely fine. It does indeed work better for many but it doesn't for others and they should have the right, for the benefit of their business, to expect staff to go back to their original contractual arrangements.

Hotdesking, ah yes, that lovely

Crap

you can tell when a hot desker arrives at the office by the size of their bags

Squeezed together crumby Hell

Spreads flu?

Backache

Tips how to be presentable if Active Travel

Also, the government keeps saying wfh is destroying the economy as city businesses are losing out.. what about local businesses who have benefited and are not suffering everyday losses due to mass exodus from towns to cities? I buy my lunch locally now at least 3 days a week and also use local bakers/butchers which I never had time for due to not arriving in home town after commuting until 7pm at night..so the massive profit supermarkets were receiving my business then. Surely, this is a good thing as money will be spent more evenly rather than concentrated in cities. Through time, towns can grow businesses rather than everything being centred on cities and commuting.

Also, the government keeps saying wfh is destroying the economy as city businesses are losing out.. what about local businesses who have benefited and are not suffering everyday losses due to mass exodus from towns to cities?

Yes all the handwringing about commuter town high streets dying seems to have disappeared now that the (smaller, more likely to be independent) local landlords and businesses are seeing the benefit.

Perhaps you didn't mean it like that but that's quite a harsh response. A friend of mine had a stillbirth having contracted Covid. Now of course she could have contracted it anywhere (though she did very little bar commute and go to the office) - and it might have happened any way - but it is still devastating.

That also isn't really what employment law says (I should know!).
Employers have a duty to protect pregnant staff ie by not giving them heavy boxes to carry. We already know Covid presents a heightened risk to pregnant women - despite the government advice initially saying the opposite.

Also, yes of course pregnant women can be vaccinated, but a lot of us are being made to go back to work before we've received a second dose. I am too young to qualify for a second until late August - and I'm not even a young mother. Most pregnant women will fall into that category.

@Bryonyshcmyony

Yes, I've been in contact with both my insurance company and water company and both have a long message about people working from home and how the wait therefore might be longer - err why? If wfh is so good why is the customer impacted?

Because they are using it as another (weak) excuse for shit service. It has nothing to do with wfh.

Well it must do as the service was fab from my insurer 2 years ago and is pants now.

@madamovaries

Perhaps you didn't mean it like that but that's quite a harsh response. A friend of mine had a stillbirth having contracted Covid. Now of course she could have contracted it anywhere (though she did very little bar commute and go to the office) - and it might have happened any way - but it is still devastating.

That also isn't really what employment law says (I should know!).
Employers have a duty to protect pregnant staff ie by not giving them heavy boxes to carry. We already know Covid presents a heightened risk to pregnant women - despite the government advice initially saying the opposite.

Also, yes of course pregnant women can be vaccinated, but a lot of us are being made to go back to work before we've received a second dose. I am too young to qualify for a second until late August - and I'm not even a young mother. Most pregnant women will fall into that category.

Truly devastating But there is no evidence, none, that indicates a link. So many things happened that have been conflated with covid when no evidence of a link whatever

@vivainsomnia

All this thread is about is what suits workers best. No consideration at all for what suits the business best. When it is, it's with the assumption that individual employee, regardless of their role, know what is best for the company, when it is obvious that their view is based on what suits them best.

No issue with people wishing that the business honoured what suits them best but it remains that the company has a right to make a decision that suits their business best, even if their rationale is not understood or accepted by the staff.

I think many people are questioning the irrational reasons given by (some) business leaders for requiring people to be present in offices. It's not just selfishness - it's a proper questioning of the values of society as whole. Of course business has to be free to demand whatever it likes - but there's always going to be a balance, otherwise we'd have no employment laws.

@Bryonyshcmyony

Well it must do as the service was fab from my insurer 2 years ago and is pants now.

A lot can happen in two years Your insurer is shit My claim progressed seamlessly as another claim I had with same insurer 3 years ago did