Work telling us we wont get opportunity's if we don't show our faces?

[lovemenomore]

Hi all,

Wanted to know if IABU for being peed off/demoralised at this message from the owner of the company I work for.

Basically started the job in Jan & it has been 100% remote due to Covid/office closed etc. Since the restrictions have lifted I have been in and met colleagues but continued to wfh as do 75% of the company. There has been talk of us never having to go back in full time and people can choose what to do. Nothing formal has been announced. If we do want to go in we have had to book in. However the other day this was posted on our internal comms site;

"While booking is now no longer required, we are noting who turns up. Expect those that do to get the best opportunities and progression. It's obvious that being 'front and centre' means you are top of mind. We've always been a company that prioritises what you do and achieve over simple time served, this is just one aspect of that."

What are your thoughts? To me that is saying if you dont come in you will not be given the opportunities....

Lots of the staff arent local and live all over the country/world. A few of my colleagues are miffed but some friends have said all companies are like this?

You always tend to think of ‘commuting’ as something that goes with a London job and a London salary, but there are plenty of people, like me, who have quite normal jobs, that are simply a pain to travel to. Some towns and cities have better road networks/public transport etc than others, but if you nearest place suffers from bad congestion etc, then your commute is still grim.

@Coffeepot72

You always tend to think of ‘commuting’ as something that goes with a London job and a London salary, but there are plenty of people, like me, who have quite normal jobs, that are simply a pain to travel to. Some towns and cities have better road networks/public transport etc than others, but if you nearest place suffers from bad congestion etc, then your commute is still grim.

Yes that's true, hopefully though if many in the area opt for a hybrid model it might reduce that a bit at rush hours. I think on these threads there are always people who have a 4 hour commute by tube or something else, but no one forces that, its a choice usually driven by factors such as pay; more local but pain in the arse commutes not so much.

Or a motorway drive to a trading estate. Not everyone lives in London or works in a city centre.

I've been working from home since March 2020 and that was purely because I was told to. I'm happy to go back to the office when required but lots of people I know seem to think they shouldn't have to bother to go back. There has to be a balance and whilst it may not be fair that the visible people get promoted, but it's the reality of things. I think it also goes deeper, it's about promoting people who will go further and put themselves out for the company. And I talk as someone who is unlikely to get promoted ever...

In the case of covid, the people who “put themselves out” and went in to offices, perhaps unnecessarily, to be visible during the pandemic were not doing their employers a favour. They were actually putting the place at risk of a major shutdown due to an outbreak of the virus! The virus is still with us too. My own office is only working at 50% capacity due to the need for more space and distancing. So are the other 50% who are required to wfh for now all slackers? Slacking on company orders? Or maybe just adapting and coping with new circumstances for the sake of the company?

Another point…my company has relied for decades on most of us working an hour or two or three of free overtime a day and nobody taking breaks! There is no recognition for that as everyone does if. Isn’t it time there was something back in return!

Another factor is that by the temporary nature of covid lockdowns, lots of people have been WFH using their own equipment, their own internet, their own power, etc. They've been sat on their beds, on dining tables, etc. Short term, the H&S and security implications have been brushed aside, but long term, employers will find that they have to address these issues in the same way as if the worker is in their premises. I.e. desk/chair risk assessments, data security (i.e. checking workers are using a password protected/encrypted computer and not the family computer that their children use for gaming with no passwords/no encryption, etc. That's going to be a major cost and operational headache for employers. Before long, we really are going to start seeing employment tribunal cases where people have become injured etc by wrong posture, falling off unsuitable chairs, etc - it happens in normal workplaces, so it WILL start happening in home based workplaces. Likewise, there ARE going to be data security breaches, which have the potential for huge fines for employers. One of the reasons for having formal workplaces is that there's better control of workers, i.e. computers with no external device ports to prevent viruses and data theft, etc. Are employers really going to do risk assessments for every employee's home, provide them with "approved" equipment, i.e. computer, printer, scanner, desk, chair, etc., install a separate secure broadband connection in everyone's home etc? They can do that for high value/high worth employees, such as solicitors etc but it's not cost effective for "bums on seats" workers.

They are letting you carry on WFH and if that suits you then you are lucky. My DH would love this but has to go back in full time.

Mmmmmmm .......... equal opportunities springs to mind! If the company policy allows you to work from home then you cannot be discriminated against for not working in the office.

Any opportunities for promotion and development must be equal for all to achieve. They are spot on when they say that they prioritise what you do and achieve over simple time served, but make a makes a complete contradiction when they suggest attendance somehow trumps that.

You most certainly don't need to be in an office to be more productive, responsive, imaginative, accurate etc etc.

I would keep a

Are employers really going to do risk assessments for every employee's home, provide them with "approved" equipment, i.e. computer, printer, scanner, desk, chair, etc., install a separate secure broadband connection in everyone's home etc? They can do that for high value/high worth employees, such as solicitors etc but it's not cost effective for "bums on seats" workers.

We have carried out home-based risk assessments for every member of staff WFH, and purchased whatever equipment is necessary to ensure their H&S requirements. Doesn't matter if they're an admin assistant or the director. The outlay in suitable equipment was offset by the savings on expenses over a year+ of no travel to meetings, conferences etc.

@RampantIvy

I wish posters would stop bandying the word presenteeism around. Has it occurred to them that some of us are really looking forward to meeting up with our workmates again after over a year. And being present in the office is far more than being about presenteeism.

A lot of posters seem to miss the points about soft skills and nuances that you don't get on Teams/Zoom.

I work just as efficiently at home or in the office, and much as I love DH, being with him 24/7 has meant that I am craving other company.

Preferring to be back in the workplace is not presenteeism though. Nor is recognising that there are certain advantages to people being physically present.

Presenteeism is about placing presence above productivity.

I too am keen to be back amongst it some of the time, and there are aspects of my role which really benefit from proper face to face interaction. I still think that it's poor management to require people to be seen to be there for the sake of it.

@VeryLongBeeeep

Are employers really going to do risk assessments for every employee's home, provide them with "approved" equipment, i.e. computer, printer, scanner, desk, chair, etc., install a separate secure broadband connection in everyone's home etc? They can do that for high value/high worth employees, such as solicitors etc but it's not cost effective for "bums on seats" workers.

We have carried out home-based risk assessments for every member of staff WFH, and purchased whatever equipment is necessary to ensure their H&S requirements. Doesn't matter if they're an admin assistant or the director. The outlay in suitable equipment was offset by the savings on expenses over a year+ of no travel to meetings, conferences etc.

We did the same. It was one of the first things that we did when everyone was sent home.

@007Stocko

Mmmmmmm .......... equal opportunities springs to mind! If the company policy allows you to work from home then you cannot be discriminated against for not working in the office.

Any opportunities for promotion and development must be equal for all to achieve. They are spot on when they say that they prioritise what you do and achieve over simple time served, but make a makes a complete contradiction when they suggest attendance somehow trumps that.

You most certainly don't need to be in an office to be more productive, responsive, imaginative, accurate etc etc.

I would keep a

Equal opportunities only applies to protected characteristics. Not whether or not you choose to behave in a way your employer likes. I could decline lots of opportunities at work, such as taking things to conferences, presenting to senior management etc. but these give me an advantage when promotions come around. Being seen in the office regularly is generally in that category.

I think what they have said is honest.

We all know this is the reality, whether it's said or not

I suppose people who have been stuck in a rut before the pandemic with no opportunities offered back then will see right through this and prefer not to potentially risk their life or health for a non-existent raise. It depends how much of a clear career path there is at your employer.

I’ve worked 30 years in the same industry - extremely male dominated, very small number of women at the top. I doubt anything will change for me if I go in to the office a few extra times.

Short term, the H&S and security implications have been brushed aside, but long term, employers will find that they have to address these issues in the same way as if the worker is in their premises. I.e. desk/chair risk assessments, data security (i.e. checking workers are using a password protected/encrypted computer and not the family computer that their children use for gaming with no passwords/no encryption, etc.

Laptops were provided as standard anyway. Workplace assessments are taking place by camera, and there is budget to provide supportive chairs etc. If you already had a special chair in the office, that's going to be more of a challenge, as now all desks are hot desks, so personal adjusted more difficult to guarantee.

Short term, the H&S and security implications have been brushed aside, but long term, employers will find that they have to address these issues in the same way as if the worker is in their premises. I.e. desk/chair risk assessments, data security (i.e. checking workers are using a password protected/encrypted computer and not the family computer that their children use for gaming with no passwords/no encryption, etc.

Ours have said as you're choosing to work from home you pay for your equipment to do so. Pay your own laptop, chairs, desks, high speed broadband, etc

They'd rather everyone came back in.

So they only started choosing after July 19th? How did they cope before?

I own a business, we have always offered remote working and the costs of home equipment, H&S and IT security are more than offset by the reduction in rent and recruitment agency fees. People seek out jobs with us, and we don’t need our square footage to be able to accommodate everyone all at once. My industry has a terrible reputation for presenteeism. We were determined to break the mould.

Daily Mail have got hold of this thread 😫

@SuperJack

Daily Mail have got hold of this thread 😫

However do they do it? It's a real mystery how they hack their way in.

It's getting to the point where posting things on here is like making them public

It's getting to the point where posting things on here is like making them public

Do you want to end up in the daily mail?

It makes me think twice about posting, because the daily mail is a very nasty newspaper and I hate the idea of them stealing stuff instead of doing some proper journalism.

It's getting to the point where posting things on here is like making them public shock

Oh dear.
Are you under the impression mumsnet is private?

@Marmitemarinaded

*It's getting to the point where posting things on here is like making them public shock*

Oh dear.
Are you under the impression mumsnet is private?

It was a joke.

Sorry missed up thread

Some posters seem to be under impression that mumsnet is a cosy little nook

And Should be protected somehow