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?

@DGRossetti

We handle names, emails, phone numbers and on The Hotel calls we do take card details.

How does that square with PCI-DSS requirements ?

Probably without great difficulty. PCI-DSS requirements in a WFH situation aren't terribly complex as long as the organisation had compliance in the first place.

@DGRossetti

Having just seen the "DH WFH" thread, I wonder how many companies have conducted an assessment of their employees working conditions at home ? When I started properly WFH they sent a H&S officer around to advise and approve the setup. Although maybe working for an insurance company they were very sensitive to workplace injury claims.

"You mean your employer was happy for you to work at an unsuitable desk with unsuitable equipment until your back/eyes/wrists/legs developed a chronic condition ?"

Would be how I imagine a claim starting.

At the height of the lockdowns, it was reasonable for employers not to undertake the usual work station evaluations, security procedures, etc.

But now the worst is behind us, employers no longer have any excuse and need to ensure compliance at remote working locations, and that has to include personal data security in accordance with GDPR and as said above, the specific requirements re card payments.

I’m much more worried about anyone who works from home and handles confidential information. I’m thinking HCP (eg I saw a psychologist on the NHS. She was clearly working from her bedroom), lawyers, social workers etc etc

DWs had quite a few Teams meetings with her support group and 1-2-1 with a counsellor via Zoom (I think). All NHS staff.

However I have seen enough unattended filing trays around hospitals to really be that bothered.

@StripedMousse

I think its about time people went back to the office. My job will never be WFH however I am sick of liasing with other professionals when at work and hearing doorbells, dogs etc. It is so frustrating. I had an important meeting the other day and she kept stopping to let the puppy out. Utterly unprofessional.

The pandemic has made a lot of us that bit more human, understanding and flexible. Shown us what really is important in life.

Do you know whats important? The 28 patients I was caring for at the same time as this woman who was wasting my time messing around with her puppy instead of ticking her boxes and doing her job efficiently so I could get on with mine.

@DGRossetti

I’m much more worried about anyone who works from home and handles confidential information. I’m thinking HCP (eg I saw a psychologist on the NHS. She was clearly working from her bedroom), lawyers, social workers etc etc

DWs had quite a few Teams meetings with her support group and 1-2-1 with a counsellor via Zoom (I think). All NHS staff.

However I have seen enough unattended filing trays around hospitals to really be that bothered.

That doesn’t mean that either are OK!

@DGRossetti

Look to create a mashup of this thread and the LinkedIn one

Completely agree with that CEO - every other employer that forces people to work 9-5 in an office means good recruits for me when I am hiring offering a choice of office, hybrid or wfh on flexible hours.

At the moment recruitment is very competitive and its a job seekers market.

It isnt a new 'policy'. Most folks were working in a base prior to lockdown. There was a change by the government instructing people to WFH where possible. You were naive to think this would be indefinite given lockdown has lifted and most are returning to the work place albeit staggered.

The amount of folks on MN who moved home on the basis of a permanent WFH arrangement is staggering and then pissed off they are expected to go back to the office. The number of people working with young babies in the background as they seem to think they can do both without organising childcare is a shock too. Sounds like your one of those

@rogueone

It isnt a new 'policy'. Most folks were working in a base prior to lockdown. There was a change by the government instructing people to WFH where possible. You were naive to think this would be indefinite given lockdown has lifted and most are returning to the work place albeit staggered.

The amount of folks on MN who moved home on the basis of a permanent WFH arrangement is staggering and then pissed off they are expected to go back to the office. The number of people working with young babies in the background as they seem to think they can do both without organising childcare is a shock too. Sounds like your one of those

It may be staggering to you but considering many people have been working at home for 2 years now, I don't think it's very surprising. The cat is out of the bag and people have realised that some employers (often older ones in my experience) just want them to go into the office for the sake of it. People will vote with their feet though because not all employers are back in the dark ages.

I do agree that people shouldn't be looking after young children at the same time though.

But it doesn't really matter if you think you can WFH effectively if you employer wants you in full time or part time. If your contract wasn't changed to say WFH, basing life decisions like moving house on an assumption the temporary situation worked for you so your employer would keep it in place was foolish.

This whole thread started with an OP who was told at interview it would be a mix of office and home working and now is leaving because that mix is happening. I just find it bizarre so many people have made life decisions without getting things in writing.

missfliss what is disappointing is your post. If there are two parents to a child regardless of earnings Point 2 can be managed by either parent. The mother is only the default if they allow themselves to be a default. My husband certainly took his share of emergency childcare even though he earns more.

Your post assumes that all businesses can facilitate people working around childcare, laundry, housework and personnel appointments etc. I am guessing your contracted hours for example are for example 40 a week which you can do when you like, as no other area of the business is dependenent on you to be available at set parameter times. You are very lucky. Alot of businesses cannot adapt this model. If you were in the office what would you normally be doing at 8.00am? If you were commuting unless you were on a train, you would not be working. This is where WFH and work can all blur into one. C8H10N402 if you were working in an office you would not be taking calls at 7am as you have stated. Did you switch off after your contracted hours then or did you stay on just to finish started jobs off? Or did someone contact you again at 4.50 when you had started at 7am as they thought you were still at work?

No idea what you're on about to be honest - but no.
My hours are 40 hours per week and 9-5 must be covered.

Today I started at 8 and finished at 6.

I have clients in multiple time zones including North America and Asia and I therefore am flexible around their needs.

My son is at school but when he was younger he was in nursery and a childminder - not at home whilst I was working. I spend most of my day with clients or with project teams - having young kids around is out of the question

On the rest of your post frankly I can't make head nor tale of it - especially the laundry reference.

But there you go.

Page 25 8.36am re read your post. You might understand why your point 2 comment is disappointing 😂😅🤣. Not all husbands/partners leave childcare solely to the Mother.

So you started at 8 but were on mum's net 36 mins in. So your work has taken out 10 hours of your day to be available . I also work with companies in Asia, America both sides and Europe and these businesses are all linked.

So outside of your core hours your have added another 2? If you do that daily that makes it a 50 hour week.

So you are not required to work outside the parameters of 9-5 but WFH has enabled you to add in another couple of hours a day by personal choice so you have been enabled to work extra because you are conscientious.

So you are a prime example of work life blurring into home life. You started earlier by 1 hour than you needed to and finished 1 hour than you needed to.

So in my mind home jobs also encroach into the core hours of the contract. I started at 8 so I will just.... put the dishwasher on, put the laundry on. Pop out pick the kids up. So does your WFH become less of a life balance than going into an office at 9 and leaving at 5? Recent studies on WFH have found that this is a problem which needs to be resolved. Great article on Forbes some people may read it and think Gosh yes I do that...

@MargosKaftan

But it doesn't really matter if you think you can WFH effectively if you employer wants you in full time or part time. If your contract wasn't changed to say WFH, basing life decisions like moving house on an assumption the temporary situation worked for you so your employer would keep it in place was foolish.

This whole thread started with an OP who was told at interview it would be a mix of office and home working and now is leaving because that mix is happening. I just find it bizarre so many people have made life decisions without getting things in writing.

It does matter because if people think they can WFH effectively and their employer is being unreasonable they are likely to look for another job. If everyone votes with their feet employers that haven't moved with the times are going to lose a lot of skilled workers,

Everything is done by 8 am in my house tether - including school bus that collects my child.

I then either have a short walk, or I'll start early and yes - shock of all shocks- might look on Mumsnet on my phone whilst reading emails that came in overnight.

If, as an adult, I want to show my employer the same care they show me - I will sometimes work longer to get the job done. This has always been the case - WFH does make this easier but it's always been necessary.

That's just being a grown up in a job.

Yes, at lunchtime I might put a load in the dishwasher or pop to the shop... is that ok?

At 3:30 I will open the door to let my son in. He then entertains himself before I finish.

My husband gets in about 5 - he's a teacher who leaves at 7.

Previously I had to commute by bike 60 mins each way due to a very awkward office location / school bus time crunch and pay an afterschool nanny to come for 2 hours every day. Oh, and I couldn't be available for Asia calls before 9am ever.

What's your point? This is a perfect example of a WFH set up that works for the employer and employee.

And the post yesterday was talking about a societal issue - which I'm afraid still stands and is proven no matter how many individual anecdotal examples you share.

Women are still paid less than men, and, in our society working women provide more childcare than working men still.

This isn't a 'disappointing' opinion - this is data.

Belladonna12 you have said it all in Think they work from home effectively. Employers may have evidence Employees aren't working effectively. By moving with the times Skills have to some extent already been lost in some areas of employment and on a personal level. The ability to converse without a screen in front of a face will be the new problem.

There are always posters on these wfh threads astonished at the ‘entitled’ attitudes of those of us questioning going back even for, say, three days a week. What did we do before, etc.?

Well, in my case I always hated aspects of open-plan offices but accepted that wfh permanently just wouldn’t work and wasn’t an option. When I requested wfh pre-COVID I was told I could become depressed and isolated - even just wfh a couple of days would be a real risk, apparently. I was told I wouldn’t be visible. I also felt I needed regular access to printers and similar.

The last two years have revealed the reality. Wfh does not make me depressed (although going in at least a few times a month is optimal). In fact, it’s far better than I had imagined. Work relationships haven’t really changed as most of the people I deal with have always been based either in other offices, at home or in the field. In-person meetings had already been decreasing over the years I’ve been working. And I’ve weaned myself off printing!

I am the first to comply with rules and requests that are necessary or sensible even if I don’t like them, but I am not simply going to accept ‘because employer says so’ where they don’t serve a purpose and they don’t suit me. Going into an office to sit plugged into Teams calls all day is pointless.

It’s also unrealistic to expect people to meekly revert to pre-pandemic norms when so much has been made about this shift in working. We all know there are different approaches and how work will look in five or ten years’ timeis unclear, but it is at least apparent that good employers are listening and incorporating at least some flexibility if they can. I’m not at all surprised that workers are dismayed at being told to get back in five days a week after two years of wfh as one post up thread, nor in op’s case where three days seems quite arbitrary.

Missfliss your post has confirmed how much WFH does not work. But it is your lifestyle choice. It blurs work and personal life. It works for your employer as you are working more than required and it is your conscious thought process now that you can't do enough for a good company. You have shown multi tasking skills by reading work emails and mums net simultaneously. You have also said that working out of hours is always necessary. Good companies should recognise two things if you have to work outside of core hours then they may need more staff as the work is too much for one role. If you need to be online with different country locations amend the core hours to suit and accept there may not be same day answers. Your post does not reflect being an adult. It just reflects a can't do enough mind set. It sounds like your days are positively draining.

Missfliss I will agree with you on that point about data on childcare. However women with husbands/partners or even ex partners can change this. Women paid less than men is also a problem. However it is the law that is at fault here. The ability to ever challenge this is 1. Expensive and 2. Will generally cause you to loose the job. So until the Law changes to make pay more transparent and without people having to fight for what should just be legally rectified then we are and always will be where we are.

Just to add me and Mrs HR have had sex during our WFH lunch breaks ..
Now you can't do that in the office.🤣🤣

This thread is full of envy and bitterness all aimed at those WFH.

My days are fine thanks tether - and a hell of a lot better than before. A mean a LOT better.

I don't think you get to tell me that it's not working for me. I mean you can try, but ultimately it's not really your opinion that matters about whether my work life balance is working or not is it - it's mine!

I use my time effectively, do my job well - and manage my work life balance by dining my spare time well.
I've already been to meet friends for a run this morning.

I'm not sure what you think you are achieving by coming on here to tell me how wrong I am for loving WFH but it's looking quite silly now.

They are not being unreasonable to decide where they want employees to work, but notice rather short. You are not being unreasonable to look for another job (I would prob do the same unless I was desperate to stay in that job). Good luck & hope you find something else soon.

And I have worked largely from home for over ten years (had a disabled child - no choice). Am now in a position to be able to do some office work but still require an awful lot of flexibility. Am having similar problem in expectation of having to be physically on site (unnecessarily imo) on certain days. I need to suck it up until the summer, but will then be getting a new job where flexibility will be a key requirement. An advantage of the pandemic is that it has introduced more flexibility into the workplace - wise companies will recognise the value of that.

Hrpuffandstuff I am so laughing are you naive enough to think that does not go on in workplaces. The people who are caught though are generally married but not to each other 😂😅🤣😅then it becomes a right HR nightmare.

Missfliss that is true and I am pleased it is working for you, your days sound positive and I am sure all those extra hours are rewarded. I am not sure why you are trying to validate it to me though. I am irrelevant. Unfortunately though you are missing the point. In introducing WFH Employers have a responsibility to Employees to make sure that people are maintaining a work life balance. So my comments are not about you as WFH is not all about you. I picked up on your posts as it highlights a reflection of the Government latest WFH statistics about work activity. I am interested in people's lifestyles and how WFH is working so I can ensure my colleagues don't suffer from a blurred into one lifestyle. Especially when core hours need to be adhered to, to keep the business going. Apologies if I have made you feel like you have to validate your lifestyle choices. It has been interesting for me to learn how people are embracing it. It is helping me outline a safeguarding strategy for WFH. Thank you.