To resign because my job suddenly requires me in 3 days a week?

[Earlyflash]

We got told on Friday that we would be required to do a minimum of three days a week in the office from monday.

I’m new at the company (4 months) and this was never mentioned in the recruitment phase. That said I didn’t push them for a written answer.

Given we’ve spent the last two years working 100% at home, this seems like a massive overreach, and I’m intending to tell them to do one.

It’s going to have such an impact on me, my partner, and my children (from previous relationship).

I already have interviews for fully remote roles.

So, AIBU for reacting to such a request?

I would move on OP.

Started a new job recently and they said when the restrictions lift it would be 2 days at home and 3 in office. I've been feeling some trepidation about this as rules have eased.

Today my boss reassured me as they had made promises in the interview and would be sticking to it. I breathed a sigh of relief as I love wfh.

Belladonna12, you would not know either way from the post. But for an employer to suddenly change the post to 3 days in the office suggests that something is not working. Maybe I know this is hard to believe but it maybe the Employees. Maybe they have found out like one Very Senior Manager that whilst they have been WFH to suit themselves the business has not been performing as it should. With Mental Health being so vastly discussed, maybe they are wanting to visually assess the state of their employees. As I have asked the question, what is the contracts for WFH? Sat on line in Standard work times to be there to facilitate other departments? If OPs role is fit in your hours to your convenience as no one is reliant on your work, then fine the company is being unreasonable. If this is not the case maybe the Employers are not being unreasonable.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there are fewer advancements on offer for those who never go in. Not saying it’s right or wrong— but I suspect this will happen.

I was recruited in June 2020 on a full WFH contract. Since I started in Oct 20, I've been to the office once.

I would also place a bet to say that I am known and respected by the entire SMT, because of my willingness to put myself forward for things (I'm in various working groups for system improvements, and have been involved in developing training in my specialist area).

I've been put onto a development programme with the firm to progress me through the ranks, so they get the most from me in a role which is suitable for me. I have a mentor from the SMT (who I'd already met as I raised some issues he then called me to discuss previously). Maybe it's the firm I work for, but those of us who want to progress have ample opportunity to do so (another WFH employee has also been put on the same programme, so it's not just me). Or maybe it's just a case of putting yourself out there and making yourself known, regardless of where you're working?

@DietrichandDiMaggio

I find the "we have shitty working conditions so nobody should have good working conditions" attitude bizarre and very saddening.

Well, a lot of the roles that require people to work outside the home, with no option to WFH, are also those that are lower paid, so it's understandable that people get a bit pissed off when others moan about going back to commuting or having to pay for childcare, when presumably their salaries compensated for those costs, whether in money or time.

As someone on a low paid out of the home - job (I'm a TA in a primary school) I totally disagree with this. I don't have to skill set to do one of those well paid work from home jobs. Doesn't give me the right to feel bitter towards those that do. Bizarre way to think.

YANBU to go with the better option for you, I'd do the same. The extra time usually spent travelling isn't something many will want to give up. I understand some people want to be in the office but wfh is better for lots of others and I think it will become more common. I don't think you'll be the only one looking elsewhere.

Your work doesn't owe you the most convenient set up for your personal circumstances...you owe them to fulfil the contract in return for wages. So find out what your contract requires and start from there.

But for an employer to suddenly change the post to 3 days in the office suggests that something is not working. Maybe I know this is hard to believe but it maybe the Employees. Maybe they have found out like one Very Senior Manager that whilst they have been WFH to suit themselves the business has not been performing as it should.

Which means that senior management are very out of touch. Otherwise how would they suddenly discover with no warning that the business isn't performing, and that the reason is staff working from home, and that everyone must go in right way? Surely a competent senior manager would have been monitoring business performance from the start and would have been able to give more than a weekend's notice.

@Twattergy

Your work doesn't owe you the most convenient set up for your personal circumstances...you owe them to fulfil the contract in return for wages. So find out what your contract requires and start from there.

Contracts go both ways. The OP is free to quit and go elsewhere if the workplace is unreasonable.

Surely a competent senior manager would have been monitoring business performance from the start and would have been able to give more than a weekend's notice.

I think you have nailed the problem in many organisations - middle and senior management elevated by the Peter principle and/or with no training in management.

It is not just wfh, organisations want to retain high quality staff and recognising the need to change and adapt is how that will be done. The four day week is currently being trialled at some companies, across sectors so Chefs at The Landmark London hotel are now offered the four day week for example, it is not just office staff. Interestingly, statistically those more against this are 55+ so maybe as younger people replace these managers, there will be big changes in the way we work. Posters reference 'mental health' for a reason for people to return to work in a building but ultimately it is precisely this that is putting off people from returning to those kind of jobs as the daily commute is bad for their mental health. It is obviously a balancing act rather than getting people back in 5 days a week with the faux concern act. The Genie is out of the bottle now, how can you go back when it is not wanted across all levels of seniority in an organisation.

@Endoftether2000

Lyricalblowtothejaw all Departments should offer customer service...

As I said, not everyone works in customer service, so what's best for that sector is often completely irrelevant. You might as well say that lots of people work in hospitals so everyone with a job ought to be based in one, for all the sense of that approach.

@Endoftether2000

Belladonna12, you would not know either way from the post. But for an employer to suddenly change the post to 3 days in the office suggests that something is not working. Maybe I know this is hard to believe but it maybe the Employees. Maybe they have found out like one Very Senior Manager that whilst they have been WFH to suit themselves the business has not been performing as it should. With Mental Health being so vastly discussed, maybe they are wanting to visually assess the state of their employees. As I have asked the question, what is the contracts for WFH? Sat on line in Standard work times to be there to facilitate other departments? If OPs role is fit in your hours to your convenience as no one is reliant on your work, then fine the company is being unreasonable. If this is not the case maybe the Employers are not being unreasonable.

The sudden change to 3 days a week may have more to do with the change in guidance. Plus some managers just don't like home working and it's often is more about them than their staff's productivity.

Posters reference 'mental health' for a reason for people to return to work in a building but ultimately it is precisely this that is putting off people from returning to those kind of jobs as the daily commute is bad for their mental health.

I don't think it's always that simple. So, for me, working in the office is better for my MH. I am much happier and more productive when I am have people around me. But it suits my family circumstances better to have me WFH as I can then do the morning drop offs and not have to pay extra for early nursery drop and school breakfast club. It also means there's a more even split between DH and I, in that I do the morning drop offs and he does the evening pick ups. If I was office based he'd have to do all of it.

Given the choice, I'd have to go with the WFH because it makes family life easier - but it doesn't actually suit my MH or my working style.

These things are never simple.

@Earlyflash

I don’t want to add fuel to the fire here, but as an interesting aside;

Of the four people we’ve made offers to in the last month (taken three months to find these four); all of them have now declined to join because of the new policy.

I guess it’s a trade off between ‘best candidate’ and ‘closest candidate’ moving forward.

In which case it sounds like you're in a good bargaining position! Tell them you'd be happy with the 1 day a week as initially agreed but not 3 days. They might need to re-think this generally. I'm sure there are staff both tenured and joined over last couple of years who will be pushing back too.

SirSamuelVimes, yes, sorry I should have put sometimes as in sometimes that is the case. For our family it was the daily commute pre-covid that was stressful and we have found it was unnecessary to put the stress on us as DH just as productive if not more so with a hybrid situation. I am the same I like hybrid as I do like working in an office sometimes if it is a nice environment but I wouldn't want to be full time in an office 5 days a week. Tbh it is not a possibility for us anyway as sosmtimes DH is away for work for 2-3 days a week.

Up to you whether you want to continue working there or not, but it is entirely your fault that you didn't get full clarity on this when you accepted the job.

Companies are unlikely to want people to work from home indefinitely. People are unlikely to want to wear masks indefinitely. People are unlikely to want to do lateral flow tests indefinitely. Do you see my point? We need to move on with time to a more normal way of life again

@anonsattic

Up to you whether you want to continue working there or not, but it is entirely your fault that you didn't get full clarity on this when you accepted the job.

Companies are unlikely to want people to work from home indefinitely. People are unlikely to want to wear masks indefinitely. People are unlikely to want to do lateral flow tests indefinitely. Do you see my point? We need to move on with time to a more normal way of life again

"Normal way of life" doesn't mean that everything remains the same. Things change all the time. Following this pandemic I think one of them will be that far more people will work at home.

Well "new normal" might well be the 3 days a week in the office and 2 at home, rather than 5 in the office. Most employers are looking at blended options to get the flexibility, the cost savings of not needing as much office space, but get back some of the benefits of staff being in the office now and then.

@MargosKaftan

Well "new normal" might well be the 3 days a week in the office and 2 at home, rather than 5 in the office. Most employers are looking at blended options to get the flexibility, the cost savings of not needing as much office space, but get back some of the benefits of staff being in the office now and then.

4 day working weeks are creeping in too.

Surely it is the individual business's prerogative to decide what working model suits them, not to be dictated by an individual's personal preference. Although reasonable adjustments should be accommodated.

@anonsattic

Surely it is the individual business's prerogative to decide what working model suits them, not to be dictated by an individual's personal preference. Although reasonable adjustments should be accommodated.

They might not be able to have the working model exactly as they would like if people vote with their feet as OP plans to.

They might not be able to have the working model exactly as they would like if people vote with their feet as OP plans to

That's exactly my point.

@Belladonna12 theres always someone to replace you not many people aren't replaceable as far as businesses are concerned and op is new at job not even like an longstanding employee who knows all the companies policies clients or whatever inside out
There is always someone to replace you

[quote worriedatthemoment]@Belladonna12 theres always someone to replace you not many people aren't replaceable as far as businesses are concerned and op is new at job not even like an longstanding employee who knows all the companies policies clients or whatever inside out
There is always someone to replace you [/quote]
There might not be anyone who could do as good a job at the same salary.

[quote worriedatthemoment]@Belladonna12 theres always someone to replace you not many people aren't replaceable as far as businesses are concerned and op is new at job not even like an longstanding employee who knows all the companies policies clients or whatever inside out
There is always someone to replace you [/quote]
Some people are replaceable.
Some people are hired for their skills and knowledge. If the company has truly hired the best candidate, then it's in their best interest to keep that person. If hiring is done right, then that person SHOULD be difficult to replace. If an employee is easy to replace then how much can they realistically be contributing to the company?

Yes, it is of course the company's prerogative to decide how they want to conduct business. It is also the employee's prerogative to take their talents, skills, and time elsewhere.

An employee's skills and experience have value, and employers are not bestowing a benevolent favour by employing people. Employment is a mutually beneficial relationship, not a dictatorship, and if the employer decides to take a specific position then yes, they can lose the skills of their talent -- some of whom will now have expanded their own knowledge and ability while employed.

If employers don't want skilled people that they hired because they were presumably the best fit for the role to walk, then they should listen to those employees.