To think my employer demanding I go back to the office is just cruel

[Runnyrose]

I work full time over 4 days. DD attends nursery and DH and I split drop offs and pick ups between us. We live 45 minutes from my work in one direction and an hour from DHs in the other but I've been working from home since returning from mat leave in February. My job used to involve a lot of travel around the county and before mat leave, I could easily not step foot in our main office for weeks at a time and generally would start from home and finish at home and go to meetings or appointments in between. Because of the efficiency of Teams, these meetings are almost exclusively virtual and there is no plan to go back to face to face meetings. There is literally not a single aspect of my job that requires me to be in the office.
Suddenly, it's been announced that we have to go back to the office and work there. This will be impossible to manage with DDs childcare setting so the only way will be for my DH to take over both drop offs and pick ups which will mean, to ensure he's there on time, losing 2 hours of work a day. He's self employed so this is a significant amount of money lost every day. I will also lose 2 hours of seeing DD for travel time every day. Not to mention the sudden increased cost in fuel.
I've spoken to my manager and she was completely inflexible and the only solution we could come up with was for me to drop my hours so that I can drop DD off as soon as nursery open, race to work, leave the second the clock strikes 5 to race to pick her up again which frees DH up at least but makes my day a race everyday and costs me a full day a week's pay which works out at nearly £5k a year in bring home pay, not to mention the impact on my pension etc . I can't work full time over 5 days because the nursery don't have availability for her current day off and also, I don't want her going in 5 days a week. Going part time won't even feel like a break for me because I'll literally just be replacing the 2 hours a day working with traveling.
I feel so unbelievably angry at my employer that I work so incredibly hard for them, they know this and my manager said she knows this, but there is no flexibility to allow me to keep working from home when it's going to cause complete devastation to our family set up and financial situation and not in any way shape or form change what they get out of me whilst I'm at work.
I'm trying to find another job but my work is quite niche and there just aren't that many jobs around that pay the same level I'm at now. And I do love my job and don't want to leave it.
I have no problem going back into the office, I just want the option to still be allowed to start and / or finish at home like the job was when I first started and what DH and I planned our situation around before we even had DD.

I'm with you, OP. I am very grateful that my employers have introduced our new ways of working policy that states we only need to go to the office if there's a business reason to.

I cannot understand why employers would want to put their employees through a longer day (commute time), the expense of travelling, the impact it has on the environment when people travel unnecessarily, all to do a job that can be done just the same from home.

If anything, I find the days that I do go to the office now very distracting. People stop to natter at the desk, in the kitchen etc. Don't get me wrong, I like having a natter so I am not complaining, but my productivity at home without any distractions is much better than in the office.

I think this is a sign of employers not caring about their colleagues. I know I'll likely get flamed for saying that, but I can't see what justification an employer has to bring employees back into the office, knowing it will have an adverse impact on their staff, if their job is just to make Teams calls all day long. It makes no sense.

I don’t know, most people who do compressed hours can’t do drop offs and pick ups can they? I understand why you’re annoyed and I sympathise but I don’t think they’re being that unreasonable .

Also that there are 5 people in the same situation, who could potentially unite and convince management that this is unfair.

I wonder if there's an opportunity to discuss a model that maximises the benefits for the whole team? Some of their clients might prefer immediate site visits, some might prefer web meetings. This could be divided amongst staff more effectively.

As an employer, I would really appreciate the heads up that this decision was affecting you this way OP, and I'd want to know that my solutions weren't enough. It wouldn't necessarily change my mind, but I'd want to do my best to retain good talent.

I think this is a sign of employers not caring about their colleagues. I know I'll likely get flamed for saying that, but I can't see what justification an employer has to bring employees back into the office, knowing it will have an adverse impact on their staff
Because staff saying that they are very efficient working from home doesn't make it a fact. Who, who is desperate to work from home, would agree that they are not as productive at home? They wouldn't admit to themselves let alone anyone else.

Organisations want to run their business smoothly and cost effectively. From some, it indeed means allowing staff to work from home. Many however will have assess that working from home is does not bring efficiencies for different and various reasons.

Not knowing or understanding these reasons doesn't make them inexistent.

Get another job if you aren’t willing to follow company policy.

It’s not a charity if company policy is to require you to be in the office then your childcare issues aren’t their problem.

If you do your work well and it’s a niche job they should try to accommodate you. I agree with the people who say offices are less productive. I mean they might seem more productive but a lot of time when people seem busy they are just chatting. Your employer may be about to learn a lesson that in an economy where it’s hard to find good staff it’s best not to piss off the workers they have!

I think its fair to ask for some flexibility in working times but totally unrealistic to expect to work from home permanently in order to sipport your domestic arrangements..

I also think there are a lot of unsupportive comments from people here who are jealous of the arrangement you have had up to now.

@TokenGinger

I'm with you, OP. I am very grateful that my employers have introduced our new ways of working policy that states we only need to go to the office if there's a business reason to.

I cannot understand why employers would want to put their employees through a longer day (commute time), the expense of travelling, the impact it has on the environment when people travel unnecessarily, all to do a job that can be done just the same from home.

If anything, I find the days that I do go to the office now very distracting. People stop to natter at the desk, in the kitchen etc. Don't get me wrong, I like having a natter so I am not complaining, but my productivity at home without any distractions is much better than in the office.

I think this is a sign of employers not caring about their colleagues. I know I'll likely get flamed for saying that, but I can't see what justification an employer has to bring employees back into the office, knowing it will have an adverse impact on their staff, if their job is just to make Teams calls all day long. It makes no sense.

The thing is, so many people are saying they want to do it for childcare reasons and do pick up/drop offs. So that means that in usual working hours (9-5) then an hour or so is lost on school runs. I also suspect a lot of employees think that if they allow staff to do schools runs, especially of primary-age DC, then their day effectively finishes at 3pm.

My DB has full flexibility and, as long as he does his hours he can take my DN to/from school. If he has a meeting, I’ll do pick up if I’m free or GPS do it. He isn’t in a client-facing role though.

I agree it seems silly to travel for an hour to sit at a different desk for an online meeting but this is the case with many jobs. A role I had a few years ago, I only really needed to be in the office on the days I was actually delivering presentations, but I still had to go in on the other days regardless. I did manage to get a day working from home due to the company refusing to pay for me a hotel when I was delivering more than one hour away from work, they only agreed after I pointed out they were breaking their own policy and I’d speak to my union about it.

Out of interest - do you work for a public body/governmental organisation, or a private firm? There’s a lot of political pressure to get the civil service back into offices so they’re spending money in shops/using public transport, so it isn’t necessarily your managers choice. YANBU, though, if you always worked from home before, apart from your hours being compressed - that might not work for the business if you have to do visits.

I think they've been unfair but not exactly cruel. That seems a strange word to use in this situation.
I'm not really sure what you can do though. Technically your place of work is the office and on that basis they can ask you to come in. They have offered you some flexibility in changing your hours, which is something I was never allowed to do
Is there any option for your daughter to finish nursery a bit later? Most nurseries around here close between 6 and 7. It doesn't solve the issue of going in to work but might give you a bit more time.
You can get legal advice etc but would that just make life more difficult at work?
I'd keep looking for a new job but be aware the majority of companies will claim to be family friendly. IME they rarely are.

OP - call ACAS fir proper advice.
The way I view it us they have changed your working condition which they had in place pre Covid. The longevity of the working situation constitutes a contractual obligation under "custom and practice". It DOES NOT have to be written into your contract - it has become your contract.
To change it they must go through a formal consultation process with you and other affected members of the team. You do not have to agree to it. They would likely pay you off if asked.
If you submit a FWO this is saying you accept their proposed change - please do not do anything without proper HR advice.

Can you do drop off and start later and finish later and dh do pick up only?

@C8H10N4O2 exactly!
We wouldn’t need all of these ‘women need childcare’ bollocks if men pulled their weight!
Sorry OP not really related to you but for the average two parent family there’s 5 days a week - surely each parent taking it in turns would be easier on them both than one dropping hours? Why should the mother bear the brunt.
You can’t say one of them has a bigger/more important etc job because it’s their responsibility.

I’m also field based OP, I go into an office roughly once a week or less. If my role got changed to office based I would quit. Are you on a field based contract? Will they pay expenses for travel to the office? I they’ve changed the terms of your employment tbh, I think you could make noises about feeling forced to look for a new job (whatever you do don’t resign).

WFH is meant to be a major part of the package job applicants are looking for at the moment. So where are they going to find your replacement?

I’ve thought for many years that what really holds women back in the workplace is the tyranny of the hours. Who says a workday should be 9-5 (with 5 often extending to 7.30/8) and that the working week is Monday to Friday? People should be able to negotiate a deal that works for them in terms of hours and days. Of course men can easily do the standard hours because usually there is a woman in the background doing the childcare/drop-offs for them. It’s changing a little now as men are more involved with their kids but mine are almost grown up now and for most men of my age it was default that the wives did it. Meanwhile the working women are run ragged trying to do it all. I was.

Let’s hope the pandemic has now proven that we have the technology for a much more flexible working world - one where the able people are employed, not just those who are can be bums on seats for enough hours.

Yanbu, there is no reason for them to be this inflexible.

Have you thought about maybe puttimg your daughter in a nursery near your workplace instead of near your home though? Then you could do drop offa and pick ups and spend time together on your commute (I did this when my youngest was a baby and we actually had quiye a nice time singing and chatting together on our daily commute).

Yanbu, there is no reason for them to be this inflexible

How on Earth do you know this?

When did you start with them? If you worked from home for a significant period of time precovid then it is unreasonable and probably illegal for them to change your terms and conditions in this way. They can do it but there needs to be a process.

I can see why you're frustrated OP. Why can't some employers see that when staff are happier and feel their workplace is flexible then they are more productive? Why is your employer obsessed with being in the office?

Has your manager actually given a reason why you are now required to go into the office? I'm not sure what the law is around flexible working but it could be something to research what your rights are

@TorringtonDean

WFH is meant to be a major part of the package job applicants are looking for at the moment. So where are they going to find your replacement?

I’ve thought for many years that what really holds women back in the workplace is the tyranny of the hours. Who says a workday should be 9-5 (with 5 often extending to 7.30/8) and that the working week is Monday to Friday? People should be able to negotiate a deal that works for them in terms of hours and days. Of course men can easily do the standard hours because usually there is a woman in the background doing the childcare/drop-offs for them. It’s changing a little now as men are more involved with their kids but mine are almost grown up now and for most men of my age it was default that the wives did it. Meanwhile the working women are run ragged trying to do it all. I was.

Let’s hope the pandemic has now proven that we have the technology for a much more flexible working world - one where the able people are employed, not just those who are can be bums on seats for enough hours.

I saw something a few years ago, I think it was in the Guardian that as technology has advanced, WFH has actually decreased. So many managers seem to favour presenteeism (or perhaps I’ve been very unlucky). One boss I had insisted that people on training courses stay until 4, even if all the material had been covered by 3. Why? I have found this attitude over and over when I’ve been in offices.

This is why I no longer do office work, I do fixed shifts and I can’t be made to change/do overtime/cover for someone who wants to leave early. We are all treated exactly the same.

Have you put in an official flexible working request? If not, I would start there. If you are a member of a union then contact them for advice. If not, ACAS & CAB can advise also

@Jangle33

Get another job if you aren’t willing to follow company policy.

It’s not a charity if company policy is to require you to be in the office then your childcare issues aren’t their problem.

Amazed by some of the comments here and wonder if the people making them are living in some kind of Dickensian world.

No one should be content for their employer to suddenly change the terms (different location, expanded hours, removal of expense reimbursements) of your work without discussion and without changing their compensation.

People who work at home ALWAYS insist they are more productive. Why would they say they werent!

They really arent in every single example. I worked for a FTSE company for many years who did allow home working but it was so abused, people not being where they should be, children crying in the background and people feeling as another PP said once the school run was done they were also done.

If working from home was better for productivity then we would see the results over the last 18 months and we havent.