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 know they are within their rights to, but it's just so unnecessary.

Sorry, but they employ you. Not the other way around. Suck it up or find another job that suits you better.

OP, apologies if I've missed this, but what's stated in your contract as your place of work?

Might be worth speaking to an employment solicitor for some initial advice. Your home insurance might cover you for this?? Or ACAS as mentioned previously?

I'm somewhat flummoxed by the amount of posters saying you should just suck it up. You weren't expected to work from the office before, so this is a change. But I'm not an employment lawyer so I don't know much the "how it worked in practice" vs "what the contract says" actually counts.

Good luck OP, hopefully some common sense will prevail. If you can do the work more effectively from home (and be far less stressed, which has got to be good for all concerned), then it would seem nonsensical to insist you work from the office.

What did you think would happen when you got pregnant? There was no covid then, did you think they would let you wfh?

Whilst many employees love wfh employers often don't. Dp brought everyone back in last May because 2 of the team were essentially slacking, they believed they were more efficient though! In reality most companies need the interaction of employees that simply doesn't happen over zoom. Interestingly one of dps employees that was causing the issues has since left because she found working full time too much.

Couldn't you find a nursery close to work to help with the drops offs

@vivainsomnia

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.

If flexible working is associated with productivity falls over time then the employer should be able to demonstrate that. Instead what we here over and over is staff being pulled back into the office for no better reason than a manager says so.

From observation, many of them haven't conducted any such assessment but just made an assumption based on their own limited outlook.

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

It doesn't make them non-existent but if the employer is too clueless to say to the workforce "this is what happened, here were the costs and benefits to the business, this is how it was measured and this is why we need X, Y and Z" then I'd be astonished if they had conducted any kind of meaningful assessment.

The reality is most of these decisions are from middle management layers, coincidentally the layer that tends to have the most men landed based on the Peter Principle.

I my company my department could easily wfh hit other departments couldn’t, so we are being asked to come in to make it ‘fair across the company. Seems fair enough to me as no ones contracts are changing as we are contracted to work from the workplace and the employer is not required to do otherwise.

@gogohm

What did you think would happen when you got pregnant? There was no covid then, did you think they would let you wfh?

Whilst many employees love wfh employers often don't. Dp brought everyone back in last May because 2 of the team were essentially slacking, they believed they were more efficient though! In reality most companies need the interaction of employees that simply doesn't happen over zoom. Interestingly one of dps employees that was causing the issues has since left because she found working full time too much.

Couldn't you find a nursery close to work to help with the drops offs

I’m thinking that employees might not have been as productive given zoom. If people were having X meetings including travelling they should now be having X + n. Instead people are still having X. Or thé increase is less than n.

She worked from home pre pregnancy and pre covid that is what this makes it different and not as simple as employer saying 'I've changed the basis of the job you were employed to do. All the experiences of those who only WFH because of Covid are not relevant to this situation.

@Bumtum126

On every single thread of this type, and there have been many, the OP is adamant that they are working better, more efficiently, and far more productive than being in the office. It would be VERY interesting to hear the employer's take on it as it seems unlikely that they are insisting that everyone go to the office just for the hell of it.

Agreed I suspect alot would have lots of vague ideas , nothing concrete they would ever reveal to staff. I think alot of management are stuck in old ways of thinking , if I can't see them they aren't working so get them back in. Rather than review how to manage people and projects they switch to default because it feels safe and what they know.

My employer has recognised that WFH is much more efficient for us. Not having to waste time doing 90-mile round trips for client appointments and doing loads of work by phone means that we all now have caseloads that are 60%-80% higher than they would have been pre-Covid.

"Attending" a tribunal conducted via conference call takes an hour, it would take me an hour just to get to the venue if it was F2F, and sometimes a 3 hour wait if they're running late (which they often used to). And we're seeing no difference in success rates and getting more decisions changed before they actually get to the tribunal. And clients prefer it, too. It's less stress for them, which is great as my clients all have MH issues.

It's been a win all round, really, as it must save a lot of public money, too.

If flexible working is associated with productivity falls over time then the employer should be able to demonstrate that
For a start, that's not true, it's not always easy to demonstrate it all.

Even if it is possible, the process of doing so is time consuming, complex, and stressful in some cases.

Why add this role to managers who are stretched to the max already when having all the staff in the office means they can keep an eye on productivity?

Many people working from home do treat it like an office. Others however treat it like being at home and doing the strict minimum work to tick the box.

For instance, staff could get on with their call with customers and then do household duties in between and nothing else. If they were in the office though, they might also do self learning, create better filing systems and indeed file. Write more succinct reports, read executive reports etc...

The staff think they do their job by dealing with customers. The manager however expects the rest to be undertaken.

It's been a win all round, really, as it must save a lot of public money, too
Totally agree that there are roles for which working from home is more or as sufficient.

The point is that managers are much more apt to decide which is which because...that's their role to assess efficiencies.

ApplesinmyPocket

I’m neither rude or dismissive, whether you like it or not child care is not the responsibility of the employers, you may dislike that however it doesn’t make it any less accurate.

OP has to make a flexible working request that is in the benefit of the business not her personal circumstances.

I am with you OP. The job I do means I visit a lot of client sites and pre pandemic I worked from home as I was often travelling to client sites during the week and I obviously set off from home. My job (used to) take me out of the office maybe 3 days a week, due to the long hours driving to client sites and staying away from home it was an unwritten rule that I was home based even though my contract stated I was based in the London office. If I suddenly had to commute to the london office everyday I couldn't do it and would have to quit.

I recently started a new job and the company drafted a brand new contract just for me - it explicitly states I am based at home rather than the nearest regional office. What this means - post pandemic or for whatever reason they can not change my location to an office. I was glad of this security as I have worked from home now for about 20 years and could not go back to commuting.

The benefit to the business is not having to pay for office space, business rates and electricity etc. Plus having a dedicated employee who is not dashing away to nursery pick-ups stressed out of her mind and seething with resentment. Or they could drive her away and have all the recruitment costs and a possible industrial tribunal?

I would be tempted to call his bluff. Say sorry that isn't going to work for me, I plan to continue with the current arrangement. Effectively: Your move.

You could say as a compromise - you would be prepared to come into the office 'periodically' should the need arise but on a day to day basis it will not work for you.

Carry on doing what you are doing. Say you will not be resigning. It is up to them how they deal with it. If they value you and want you to continue working there then they will work around it. If they fire you/make you redundant - then really do you want to be working for a firm as inflexible as this?

@TorringtonDean

The benefit to the business is not having to pay for office space, business rates and electricity etc. Plus having a dedicated employee who is not dashing away to nursery pick-ups stressed out of her mind and seething with resentment. Or they could drive her away and have all the recruitment costs and a possible industrial tribunal?

Exactly, it is so short sighted of employers i feel. I worked for a company for four years and at the interview expressly asked if I could WFH at least 3 days a week, my boss said yes, no problem. When it actually came to it he wanted presenteeism despite me having a track record of home working, and I was commuting 120 miles a day (I would not have taken the job on this basis). He said I could work from home the "odd day" but not a Monday or Friday as it would look like I was taking the mickey. Out of a team of 6 people I was the only one not able to work from home as the others were field sales and based round the country. I lasted 6mths and handed in my notice, with seething resentment. Another department head found out and offered me a job (a much better one and actually one I preferred), I was able to work from home as much or as little as I wanted. Basically I resigned and was rehired immediately.

It was a relatively small office so I used to see my old boss on any given day I went into the office and we kept on good terms. The hilarious thing was when Covid hit and he was sent home to work I once spoke to him on teams and he was delighted at being able to work from home and acted like he invented it..

"calling their bluff " but " refusing to resign " when they've already tried to be flexible will just help them make the decision..... Goodbye!

Why would they want an employee as inflexible as that!?

Literally refusing to do what her company has quite reasonably requested. Hmm.

The benefit to the business is not having to pay for office space, business rates and electricity etc

It's entirely up to the business whether that's a benefit or not. Many have no intention of getting rid of office space, regardless of what individual employees want to do.

Plus having a dedicated employee who is not dashing away to nursery pick-ups stressed out of her mind and seething with resentment

Having employees more focused on putting washed on/prepping dinner/doing the nursery run during work hours probably isn't a better result either.

I worked for a company for 30 plus years most of which was spent working from home with client meetings as required. I was a middle manager and had a team of people and also interfaced with other parts of the business.

There are huge issues with wfh for some people. Sadly the more junior members and often women saw it as an opportunity to be unavailable during school run times, who declined calls after 1530 because they knew their children would make a noise having come back from school. Who took it as an opportunity to save on childcare and who were bloody difficult to manage because you couldnt see them but you knew they were slackers.

There was always some reason why they couldnt attend something which meant others had to pick up their work. That caused resentment with the rest of the team.

You would be very surprised how many people think if you work from home family can drop in, you can take a break to do school runs, attend school plays, take kids to the dentist, to play dates etc etc because actually no one can see what you are doing.

The call centres I worked with had people who put themselves on busy with 'customers' and it was found that they were chit chatting to each other!

Our young people need to be rubbing shoulders with people, getting on with their careers not at home being only a voice at the end of the phone.

@vivainsomnia

If flexible working is associated with productivity falls over time then the employer should be able to demonstrate that For a start, that's not true, it's not always easy to demonstrate it all.

Even if it is possible, the process of doing so is time consuming, complex, and stressful in some cases.

Why add this role to managers who are stretched to the max already when having all the staff in the office means they can keep an eye on productivity?

Many people working from home do treat it like an office. Others however treat it like being at home and doing the strict minimum work to tick the box.

For instance, staff could get on with their call with customers and then do household duties in between and nothing else. If they were in the office though, they might also do self learning, create better filing systems and indeed file. Write more succinct reports, read executive reports etc...

The staff think they do their job by dealing with customers. The manager however expects the rest to be undertaken.

Oh come on you are having a laugh.

A company which can't assess its own productivity won't stay in business.

Fascinated at the assumption that this management layer are stretched to the max whilst their staff are not. That doesn't match what I see in workplaces.

Your argument boils down to "I don't trust my staff unless I can see them in my sightline". Which suggests the wrong staff or the wrong managers. I see the latter more often than the former. If you cannot manage your staff without keeping them in the classroom you are in the wrong job.

@Franklin12

With respect, your scenario has nothing to do with OP's.

She isn't working in a call centre. She has organised child care, so no family duties being squeezed into the day.

Her issue is that pre Covid she could work the start & end of her day from home, then conduct her client visits, during the day. This in turn worked with her family arrangements and was in place at the time she had a baby.

The bringing into the office is not as a result of any performance issues, just that in person meetings have moved to Teams meetings and her employers have decided these should be done onsite. There hasn't been a business case made for this but it profoundly affects her pre-existing (not Covid-time) arrangements.

What did you think would happen when you got pregnant? There was no covid then, did you think they would let you wfh?

Maybe she thought she would be returning to the job and terms that she left before maternity leave, as it's her legal right and all.

I suggest OP ask MNHQ to amend title to
To think my employer demanding I work from the office when pre-Covid I WFH is just cruel

Maybe she thought she would be returning to the job and terms that she left before maternity leave

But that version of the job doesn't exist any more, because she isn't seeing people face to face.

That's why what's actually in the contract is important. Was her default place of work specified?

@Ariela

I suggest OP ask MNHQ to amend title to To think my employer demanding I work from the office when pre-Covid I WFH is just cruel

OP didn't work solely from home though, they were often out on visits. It's seems they were flexible with not expecting attendance in the office and allowing travel time to sites instead, but that's not the same as wfh really.