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?

We've always been a company that prioritises what you do and achieve over simple time served

....but now instead we are going to judge you based on whether you show your face in the office, irrespective of any work you do"

Working from home is also very unfair on those who live in cramped accommodation such as bedsits and flat-shares.

They should just decide what the working pattern is going to be and tell you all. Instead of making vague threats about what they find acceptable.

@MurielSpriggs

Indirect discrimination? This policy will disproportionately disadvantage women and those with disabilities...

Not really - everyone can go in - like they did before Covid so if they choose to stay home that is their own choice entirely.

It might not be that simple, but it's a good question. Almost certainly coming soon to an Employment Appeal Tribunal near you!

This. I think its really interesting and its defiantly opened a can of worms.

I know several friends who have gone head to head with their HR department to challenge why they have to go back to the office despite working extremely well from home. One has been allowed to keep one day at home the rest she has to go back (NHS) the rest are still 'fighting it'

My ex owns a business where the sales team is quite high pressured with targets and they are definitely down in sales when they work from home.( and there was absolutely piss takers, being hungover, wandering round B&Q talking to clients on the phone, family trip to the zoo whilst supposed to be working) They have all had to go in with no room for compromise - the commission is very high so they have gone back because the alternative was to leave.

In OP instance the role was taken on with a WFH basis, so unless she was told she would have to return at some point, I think its unfair that she may miss out of progression.

However, fair play if you fight and win to WFH, who wouldn't want to do that but I think its interesting that discrimination is now being thrown about as they were perfectly fine to go in work precovid. No one is entitled to work from home if they were office based before. I would imagine lots of employers are making sure the old contracts are water tight

Dumb policy. If there is a quality difference, they shouldn’t have a WFH policy. If no quality difference, this is availability heuristic. They’re aware of it, so any company worth its salt would address that bias. I’d be looking for a new job.

I see it as being honest too. There is an office that can be worked in and presumably most did pre covid. If they prefer people in the office then that’s what they want.

All the employees should have childcare in place regardless of where they are working so not sure why it would impact more on some employees than others.

[quote LittleMissBoss]@ilovetea69

That's shit, but not every organisation is like that, if you worked for us we would have bent over backwards for you.

As far as the more you give, the more they take, I could go on for ever with experiences I've had with staff and customers where Ive experienced this!! Giving loads and not getting anything back, there are people like that all over! Its getting harder now after 12 yrs as it happens much more than not. But there are some decent people out there![/quote]
Thank you - have you got any vacancies? 😂

This is seemingly very typical but says so much more about the abilities of middle/upper management than it does of their employees.
The micro managed approaches so many functioned with pre Covid is simply a dated concept in many working environments now. People have largely risen to the wfh challenge wherever possible and I think reflected on the work/life balance benefits. It'll be interesting to see how these things realistically play out in most organisations in the next 18 months/2 years

However, fair play if you fight and win to WFH, who wouldn't want to do that but I think its interesting that discrimination is now being thrown about as they were perfectly fine to go in work precovid.

Quite. I should think there are a lot of employers in the same boat as your ex.

People who think we'll never go back, don't know their history.

We revert quickly after every crisis. Remember how during the war women did the men's jobs? People thought that might be permanent progress too.

I started my job during the pandemic, working entirely from home, from an organisation that always allowed hybrid working to a degree. That appears to be the plan going forward, but with more emphasis on working from home than pre-pandemic. A lot of my colleagues feel that they want to go into the office for meetings and collaborative working, but if we are working on things that don't need to be done in the office, which is actually a huge amount of our jobs, then they would prefer to do those things at home. I agree with this and think it's completely fair and reasonable.

Some flexibility and a recognition that how things were in 2019 were shit for so many people is what is needed. This is such a massive opportunity with regards to EDI- being able to have hybrid working will make a massive difference to so many people. For me personally, I'm a single mum with primary aged children. Being able to work from home at least part of the time is honestly the difference between being able to work full time or part time. I think it should be recognised that full time office work has particular impacts on women for example, and this should be an opportunity to try and make things more equal.

@sergeilavrov

Dumb policy. If there is a quality difference, they shouldn’t have a WFH policy. If no quality difference, this is availability heuristic. They’re aware of it, so any company worth its salt would address that bias. I’d be looking for a new job.

I disagree totally, in fact I think they are giving employees flexibility to make their own decisions, instead of dictating everyone is back in the office snd for how long, but telling them if they don’t rise to the challenge of coming in periodically then they will take this as a signficant negative.

It gives the employee the control of when to come in, without dictating to them, the issue they clearly face is some aren’t bothering their arses.

We've always been a company that prioritises what you do

Then a formal policy of presentee-ism means that is no longer true.

Backwards and old-fashioned.

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

I see it as being honest too. There is an office that can be worked in and presumably most did pre covid. If they prefer people in the office then that’s what they want.

All the employees should have childcare in place regardless of where they are working so not sure why it would impact more on some employees than others.

Because in the past trying to work full time out of the home, for certain people- working mums in particular- even more so when single, people with health conditions etc-was a lot more difficult than for, hmm I don't know, single men? Or even fathers, because we know the vast majority of the time caring responsibilities fall to women.

So why can we not consider that things were crappy before and just because that's what used to happen, maybe we should instead try to take some good things that have resulted from the pandemic. Christ knows there's been enough rubbish from it.

While it might be honest, it's also a sign of neolithic management thinking.

I can see no problem with this. It's reality.

But it isn’t just about doing the work. What about passing on your knowledge to younger, less experienced colleagues, being and ear yto bend over and issues, supervising others work etc,etc.
If you are experienced and just work from home and refuse to work as part of a team that’s kind of selfish and you are only performing one aspect of your job.

I agree with this.

I honestly do not think that enabling women to take on additional caring responsibilities while simultaneously juggling the demands of a job is good for them or represents progress in any way.

That’s not to say additional flexibility over office hours wouldn’t be a welcome step forward.

@MapleMay11

*But it isn’t just about doing the work. What about passing on your knowledge to younger, less experienced colleagues, being and ear yto bend over and issues, supervising others work etc,etc. If you are experienced and just work from home and refuse to work as part of a team that’s kind of selfish and you are only performing one aspect of your job.*

I agree with this.

But there's room for both isn't there? To spend some time in the office and support younger colleagues and still have the benefit of hybrid or flexible working?

I didn't meet my line manager in person for about 9 months due to starting during lockdown. Starting a new job remotely was a bit daunting, but it was fine. I get on great with my team, love the job and have excellent managers.

There really is an issue here of poor employers and poor management who fail to look after their staff properly and manage effectively. I'm sure they're the same in and out of the office.

I do get sick of a continual race to the bottom and the way that so many people seem to support it,

However, fair play if you fight and win to WFH, who wouldn't want to do that but I think its interesting that discrimination is now being thrown about as they were perfectly fine to go in work precovid. No one isentitledto work from home if they were office based before. I would imagine lots of employers are making sure the old contracts are water tight

Not convinced that's true.

It wouldn't apply to me as I am not disabled. But taking that as an example. Lots of disabled people have been asking for more flexibility for WFH for years and been told they can't because it doesn't work for their business model.

But they still needed to work, often making themselves ill. But still forced themselves to go in. People with who are neuro diverse, spending evenings and weekends trying to mentally recover. Of, if physically disabled, physically recover.

Many people who went into an office pre covid, didn't really experience anything different and just accepted it was how it had to be so they could afford to live.

Now for 18 months, lots have seen their quality of life massively improve, without loss of performance.

And some people will have become disabled during this time.

Just because you did do something, doesn't mean you are able to just go back to it. Or if you can't go back to it, you must be taking the piss.

My entire life I’ve had problems with being taken seriously because of not being able to comply with this culture of presentee-ism. My disability means I’d prefer to work from home some days. At the very least I need to stick to my contracted hours in the workplace and take the rest of the work home. By 5pm I’m exhausted. I’m not able to spend a full day sitting in the office and then have the energy to stay out and do social activities with colleagues in the evening. Job adverts that talk about what a great social life they provide outside of work just fill me with dread, because it’s too much for me. And now I have DC it’s simply not possible for me to dedicate any time outside of my contracted work hours. Expecting people to offer this level of commitment is discriminatory.

The past year and a half has provided the perfect opportunity for well run companies to move past presenteeism and evaluate just what employees - as individuals and as a whole - can and do contribute, regardless of physical bums on physical seats.

It has been an opportunity to look at just what really is or isn't missing when people are only interacting virtually. In most cases there will be some stuff that's genuinely helped by people getting together in person, at least for some of the time. And some stuff where the productivity and quality of output is the same (or better) when done remotely.

So for a company to tie progress entirely to physical attendance seems ill thought-out and a complete waste of a learning experience. If some aspects of the work are better achieved by being there in person, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable that it would at least be taken into account in determining progression. If you give them the benefit of the doubt, this is a ham fisted way of saying that. If you don't, and they really are going to have a very black and white policy of only promoting those who are present regardless of anything else, then not only is that shoddy management, but i agree with others that it could disproportionately affect women and people with disabilities.

@Hekatestorch

However, fair play if you fight and win to WFH, who wouldn't want to do that but I think its interesting that discrimination is now being thrown about as they were perfectly fine to go in work precovid. No one isentitledto work from home if they were office based before. I would imagine lots of employers are making sure the old contracts are water tight

Not convinced that's true.

It wouldn't apply to me as I am not disabled. But taking that as an example. Lots of disabled people have been asking for more flexibility for WFH for years and been told they can't because it doesn't work for their business model.

But they still needed to work, often making themselves ill. But still forced themselves to go in. People with who are neuro diverse, spending evenings and weekends trying to mentally recover. Of, if physically disabled, physically recover.

Many people who went into an office pre covid, didn't really experience anything different and just accepted it was how it had to be so they could afford to live.

Now for 18 months, lots have seen their quality of life massively improve, without loss of performance.

And some people will have become disabled during this time.

Just because you did do something, doesn't mean you are able to just go back to it. Or if you can't go back to it, you must be taking the piss.

People should just own their reasons though, for those who simply enjoy it and want to continue. It is annoying to see people citing disability etc when they have given zero fucks before, and it's not like its a selfless act, but using them for their own wants so it's not progressive or anything. As you say, some people have been struggling on for years and everyone was very quiet.

I think it's true, and is always kind of an unspoken thing - people who turn up and network are more likely to get more opportunities simply because they will be noticed.

But I think the way this is worded is extremely unpleasant, and I wouldn't be jumping to work for a company which addresses its employees in this way. They should have put a bit more thought into it.

@TheKeatingFive

I honestly do not think that enabling women to take on additional caring responsibilities while simultaneously juggling the demands of a job is good for them or represents progress in any way.

That’s not to say additional flexibility over office hours wouldn’t be a welcome step forward.

Yes, this is what concerns me.

Where flexible working is allowed, it will be women to take the most "advantage" of it, but they'll still have full time jobs to do at the same time as picking up even more of the child rearing stuff and they'll miss out on opportunities although not being in the office, whether there is an overt policy/announcement such as this, or not.

Men's jobs will "need" them to be in the office/networking after work, while women will arrange things so they can be at home. It's just the same as what I saw when I worked in a male dominated corporate banking world. They didn't need to work long hours to get the work done, they chose to because it suited their lifestyle and their ego. The fact that they got home after bathtime was a bonus!