To think it’s daft to make big life decisions based on WFH without checking it’s permanent?

[GoldenOmber]

My work used to be office-based. We’ve all been WFH since March 2020 because of government rules (not in England).

This week the government lifted that rule, and later that day our employers told us what the plans were to start bringing us back. This is pretty flexible - not starting for a month or two yet, will still allow a lot of WFH for people who want it (like 9 days a fortnight with one in the office). Most people are ok with this. Some people really aren’t.

Now we are having drama over email with a small but vocal group saying how angry/upset they are, because they have made big changes based around getting to WFH and it will now be difficult for them to go back at all. Even 1 day a fortnight starting in April. Changes like moving house far away from office; getting a dog and not wanting to leave the dog alone; selling car and not wanting to get public transport b/c germs (not just covid, all germs).

Work have ALWAYS said WFH was temporary though! I have some sympathy for how long it’s going to take you to commute from your new house in the middle of nowhere, but SURELY you’d factor that in when you bought it?

YABU - no, after 2 years of WFH working fairly well it was reasonable to expect it to continue without checking.

YANBU - yes, they should obviously have checked.

Employees living a lot further out can see a big difference. Perhaps they’ve got very much less choice, not more choice, than you had at their age?

Not sure what age you think people are, but in my experience the people who are in a place to up and move out to an Escape to the Country style rural idyll do not have school-age kids.

Fine if people want to move out far away from their workplace, though. I have a fairly long commute myself but it’s a trade-off to get to live where I want. Just… don’t move out expecting to never ever have to be back in your workplace unless you are pretty sure that’s actually the case? Surely?

I still think a lot of the confusion has come from people assuming ‘flexible’ meant more than it did. For most of us, getting to pick your home/office ratio up to the point where you’re at home 90% of the time is already pretty flexible.

The people who don’t feel that’s flexible enough will need to look for new jobs elsewhere if they really can’t manage, I suppose. I think they might find there aren’t as many jobs like that as they’re imagining, though - there will be a lot more hybrid in the future but “you never ever have to leave your house or interact in person with anyone for work” wasn’t even standard for lots of WFH jobs pre-covid.

I work in IT. We’ve been told this week that we have to be in 3d a week from next week, so no real notice.

TBH I am fine with it. Largely because my team and most key stakeholders are all London based and there are definitely things that it’s easier to do when you are in the office at the same time. For me 2 or 3 days a week in the office is a really good balance.

I would be less convinced about returning to the office if I were in a global team, where most interactions need to be virtual.

Like many people, I have been looking at moving further from London ( 2 nights a week in a budget hotel sounds fine to me) but prices for rural properties with a few acres have become insane. I am hoping that a return to the office causes a bit of a reset.

I’m finding it frustrating.
We want to relocate and my partner works within the civil service. Having worked from home for the last 2 years perfectly fine, demonstrating she can perform well entirely remote and being civil service we always presumed it would be fairly easy for her to get a full wfh contract.

She still enquired before we really started to make plans to move but no, interestingly, her department is the only one who, SINCE the pandemic have changed to no WFH contracts. Slightly infuriating and backwards.

However, we still had the intelligence to check before starting the moving process.

@Foreverlexicon

I’m finding it frustrating. We want to relocate and my partner works within the civil service. Having worked from home for the last 2 years perfectly fine, demonstrating she can perform well entirely remote and being civil service we always presumed it would be fairly easy for her to get a full wfh contract.

She still enquired before we really started to make plans to move but no, interestingly, her department is the only one who, SINCE the pandemic have changed to no WFH contracts. Slightly infuriating and backwards.

However, we still had the intelligence to check before starting the moving process.

I'm civil service and we're not moving to WFH contracts, and I haven't heard of any department who have. We'll be a hybrid approach, with the office location still being detailed on our contract.

I think the pinch point will come where employers try to push for 3 or 4 days where it isnt necessary, and employees are happy to do 2, and are willing to move jobs/go part time or even stop entirely rather than return 4 or 5 days.

If my employer pushed for me to work all of my 4 days in the office, I would start by asking to drop to part time but ultimately would resign if needed. Most of my team are overseas so I can work well entirely at home.

@HardbackWriter

Preseneeism is sexist shit and much easier for male employees to do. It already holds women with kids back in the workplace prepandemic. Sad to see so many posters, who sound like working mothers themselves criticising others for trying to break free from it and demand more flexibility where their job can be done perfectly well from home.

I agree with this to an extent but I think hybrid working and allowing people to choose how much to be in will make this worse, not better. I'm a bit worried that we'll end up in a situation where the men are back in the office and the women with caring responsibilities aren't, and that it'll really entrench and exacerbate inequality rather than solve it.

To me, the especially sad thing is that if someone has to be in the office, the working mothers expect the childfree women to stay. It never seems to fall on men.

(I know this isn't everyone's experience but in my workplace and my experience it is)

@HunterHearstHelmsley Agree. I made this point a few pages ago and someone said that women who aren’t mothers don’t need flexibility.

I think hybrid working and allowing people to choose how much to be in will make this worse, not better. I'm a bit worried that we'll end up in a situation where the men are back in the office and the women with caring responsibilities aren't, and that it'll really entrench and exacerbate inequality rather than solve it

I absolutely agree with your concern, but the answer is for all men to step the fuck up and ask for the exact same flexibility.

I think we all have to think actively about this. Has every man in our lives who benefits from an uninterrupted career while their female partner takes the hit on her career, asked for that at his workplace? Are we asking our childless working age sons to ask for that? If not, why not?

Men asking for this would make the difference. And if society can’t salvage something positive out of a horrific pandemic which has left most women on their knees after working (paid and/or unpaid) while home schooling at the same time, well, when will we ever do it?

The model of men being expected to be in the office at all times regardless of what’s going on at home, or whether their job actually requires it, is shit for men too. Men have young children and elderly parents too. Or men might want to volunteer in some extra time saved or they might just want to avoid hours of unnecessary commuting to do whatever. It doesn’t matter. The point is working women would not be singled out. It could enhance equality, not entrench inequality. It will increase diversity in the workplace. We all need that.

I have had one guy in my team suggest he can no longer come into the office as he now has a dog and needs to be there for him! It is reasonable to give people time to readjust to office working, and for us we will be using a hybrid model. However, the working assumption for most should always have been that you need to be in 2-3 days a week. There is no way that collaborative working is as effective over Teams/Zoom, so I have limited sympathy.

I’m not saying it’s necessary best for everyone to return to the office, and I think employers should listen to people’s points fo view.

However I think moving house on the strength of no guarantee and expecting to them force your employer’s hand is something of a bold move - and unfair on both the employer and colleagues

What makes it more difficult is individual productivity is not the same as team productivity. So while an individual can be more productive at home it can have a negative effect on the team as a whole, as others don’t learn from best practise, collective momentum, sparking ideas etc...

Then there is new starts or new projects, inter staff relationships are so important as it relationship with clients. So again an established member of staff might not be affected but the team as a whole is.

Unless you can see the bigger picture you won’t know this.

There really can be a business case for getting people back into the office, even if some individuals are more productive wfh,

(Those with disabilities please speak to HR and occupational health and she was reasonable adjustments can be made - don’t just put up with worsening health to not make a fuss)

I know for us, we have been really messed about in terms of how / when we would be returning. It went from head office saying coming into the office once a fortnight was the standard, some people would do more days, some people less but it was all dependant on job role and how often you "needed" to be in but discuss it with your manager/team etc and agree on a pattern. So a lot of people made life decisions based on this information.

Then around last summer they sent out communication stating everyone had to be in the office a minimum of three days per week and they claimed this was always the plan and completely denied ever stating the above (despite all the emails / communications)..... it did not go down well! They lost a lot of staff very quickly and the staff "happiness score" hit rock bottom. I still can't understand why they suddenly changed their stance on it and no one can understand that they tried to claim it was "always the plan" when they had clearly said otherwise.

This is a big UK business and they lost many staff to competitors who were offering either permanent home working roles or a better hybrid working pattern.

So I do feel bad for anyone in that situation, who made life choices based on the information they were given only for the employer to change their minds - but I think the ones who did it thinking WFH would just continue forever without discussion are pretty stupid.

I overheard one woman at work complaining she had got a dog during lockdown and didn't want to leave it and therefore our employer should pay for dog sitting services as they were forcing her back in!

What is a bit disappointing, to me, is the attitude that employed people don't have any say in their conditions and shouldn't expect to, either. I mean, I know there are always going to be the Head Good Girls who are looking over their shoulder and trying to make sure that they're watching their colleagues and noting infractions. However, as far as I'm concerned, people who are in employment are in a two way relationship with their employer and need to be suited as well. Why does it make anyone else angry that another person wants to have a different experience of how they live and work?

@dorkfink

And MEN being at home all day is awful. If they are working (from home) they are arrogant and shouty and take over the whole house, and their selfish needs trump everyone else's. If they are furloughed they are whiny and clingy and lazy, and get under your feet, chatting shit half the day, and following you around.

I think the problem is the men in your life not remote working!

I agree we get on just fine, we enjoy, logging off at 5-6 pm and then spending time together.

WFH is clearly a contentious issue, I'm nearly 100% this is driven by jealousy, workaholics, there have been very few objective reasons given.

Whatever people have done, moved away if it doesn't work for them, they will just change behavior and find something that suits them.
Economics 101- behavior and choices drive the market not commands from management to do as 'thine' told.
No one is tied to a job.
We moved away from her office for various personal reasons, if her employer decides to renege on the WFH agreement we've already made alternative plans.

Who'd thunk it?
Employers and employees who kick up too much fuss will find themselves with fewer colleagues and empty desks.
Boohoo.

I employed 5 new people at start of pandemic when we were all WFH but made it very clear it was only a temporary situation
One left when we went back to office as they couldn’t leave their dog
The person who I hired to replace them asked about WFH and I explained that it did not suit our line of business but I could be flexible and do a mixture which they agreed to
Sadly their idea of flexible was not the same as mine! I thought 2-3 days at home 2-3 days in office
It started out ok then the excuses started until they were only coming in every few weeks
After 6 weeks of not seeing them we mutually decided it was not working out
Thankfully the other 4 are great

I know people who were hired on reduced salaries because of wfh. I imagine a lot of people in that position would just leave for another company that does allow wfh so it does seem a really short termist policy.

@Cofifeefee

Yes, lots of people not able to come into work because of childcare - why did they give up childcare? And it's just said as a statement of fact, no apology, no expectation of repercussions for not attending.

I'm also hearing a lot of chat from people that say they have proven they can do the job from home. Yes, you may have but if company policy is everyone will attend the office 3 days a week, why do you think that you will be exempt from that policy?

In fairness on the childcare front I know a number of people who have just lost their childcare for wraparound as the provider went out of business. It’s as challenging as ever to find someone new so some of these people may well be on waiting lists to get in somewhere. In our case at start of first lockdown we had one child still in nursery and second in school with wraparound at the nursery. Over past 2 years youngest has moved up to school and eldest is now too old for the wraparound at the old nursery. When things went back to semi normal in September 2020 since we were both wfh saving commute time we managed with just breakfast club every morning at school and one dropping off/one collecting. When OH went back to the office in 2021 we adjusted so kids had some days in wraparound till 4:30. I’ve also heard: breastfeeding is only free if a woman’s time is worth nothing. I also went back to office part time last September but there are still no slots for wraparound till 6 available now. We can manage as our commute is minimal but if we had a longer commute we’d be really struggling

I think the moving situation is a little unfair, because a lot of people had to move further from the office to afford a bigger house to enable WFH. We constantly see threads on here complaining about people working from shared living spaces so after almost 2 years I can see that people felt they had no choice but to move.

That said your work seems fair - 1 day every 2 weeks is commutable for most.

In the office for one day a fortnight?! Goodness me. YA definitely NBU! I now have to commute to the office for 8 days a fortnight and I'm managing.

I don’t know anyone who has been asked to return 5 days per week.

Us. I'm only doing 4 days because I'm part time. I'd be doing 5 in the office if I was FT.

@RoomOfRequirement

I think the moving situation is a little unfair, because a lot of people had to move further from the office to afford a bigger house to enable WFH. We constantly see threads on here complaining about people working from shared living spaces so after almost 2 years I can see that people felt they had no choice but to move.

That said your work seems fair - 1 day every 2 weeks is commutable for most.

I do think this is a particular problem for hybrid when the employer specifies both a minimum and a maximum (which seems to happen sometimes when they want to reduce office space). It requires people to both live close to commute easily and to have enough space for home-working, which is potentially a big ask.

There seems to be a real age/life stage divide. Everyone who is settled, has a partner, a family, a home…. Wants to wfh and “escape to the country” or at least a village within hailing distance of civilisation.

Young people - all that I know - do not like wfh. Ds is upstairs now wfh. He has not met one colleague and there are no zooms. His friend who is doing chartered accountancy training wfh, auditing transferred files and training remotely. No bants with colleagues to stave off the boredom of training! Another boy is doing an internship for a newspaper - remotely. No excitement of the news room and “hold the front page!” drama: he’s sitting in his bedroom and appearing awkwardly in the corner of a zoom call.

Some jobs are perfectly fine if done remotely; many, many are not - a lot of people forget they work in a hierarchy and have responsibilities to those beneath them. I note that the civil servant who is the Culture Permanent Secretary (on £165k) said she was wfh forever so she could Peloton and see her dcs: I wonder how effective at leading her team she is and how well she knows her staff. Wfh requires a static trained staff with little turnover.

Yanbu. It really irritates me that people have not considered the fact that WFH would very likely be temporary. They should have known this. I have zero sympathy for them. Especially those who have followed the crowd and got a dog during the pandemic because they were bored. They are incredibly irresponsible to have not considered the high possibility they would be returning to work and would need to leave the dog for a few hours. Dogs should be trained to be left for a few hours at a time regardless of whether you WFH or not so as to avoid separation anxiety. Boils my blood.

The majority of people I know who have been griping about returning to the office are incredibly lazy and simply can't be arsed. Ugh.

@VorpalSword

What makes it more difficult is individual productivity is not the same as team productivity. So while an individual can be more productive at home it can have a negative effect on the team as a whole, as others don’t learn from best practise, collective momentum, sparking ideas etc...

Then there is new starts or new projects, inter staff relationships are so important as it relationship with clients. So again an established member of staff might not be affected but the team as a whole is.

Unless you can see the bigger picture you won’t know this.

There really can be a business case for getting people back into the office, even if some individuals are more productive wfh,

(Those with disabilities please speak to HR and occupational health and she was reasonable adjustments can be made - don’t just put up with worsening health to not make a fuss)

I agree 100% with everything you've said here.

I was one of the people who moved further from the office during lockdown, though I made sure my employers were happy with it first. Remote working was already in place for some people long before lockdown, and my role doesn't need me to be physically in the office.

People moving without checking first have no common sense.