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.

What gets to me are people stating that they are now having to deal with childcare. I have been working from home since March 2020. I treat it exactly as if I had to go into the office. If people have children that require childcare they should be in childcare even if working from home. When people say this it makes it look like people working from home are taking the piss. I get more done at home and stupidly don't even take a break like I would in the office.

I never expected to be at home forever but I do think work should accomodate people if they want to continue. I certainly wouldn't mind going in a day a week. I think people shouldn't have made big life decisions that would not allow them to attend the office at all. However I would be pissed off if what is working for me now is going to change dramatically.

I always had a long commute and parking to pay for. I am not on a lot of money and a saving weekly of €70 means a lot to me.

Agree OP. People who have moved house, or say, I can't go back to the office cos childcare, I pick the kids up everyday now etc.
.

YANBU I have been a staunch supporter of flexible working including WFH and have drafted supportive policies. I have spent hours trying to get senior managers to accept their Ben small changes. When the first lockdown meant everyone who could should WFH I laughed as offices were suddenly deserted but the work was still being done.

However, there will always be a need for employees to attend the office occasionally and the policies I wrote reflected this. A hybrid 3WFH, 2 days in the office seems a pragmatic approach.

I could not believe those making wholesale life changes as though this was a permanent change, it was short sighted to make such major decisions in the midst of a pandemic.

YANBU. We've had people do this and it's causing a world of pain when it was very clear it was not permanent for office based workers.

I completely agree. My favourite where I currently work is people who have moved far away from London and expect to keep their London weighting when they've been told to get back to the office and asked to move to a provincial office instead of London. Rules clearly say you lose your London weighting!

I agree with PP - if you are working from home, you should not be doing childcare. The only difference is the time required due to getting to the place where the childcare is being done

@gwenneh

YANBU. I'm an enormous supporter of WFH, but until and unless the employer makes it permanent it's ridiculous to make life decisions based on the ability to do so.

I get that it's problematic at times, particularly if an employer has hinted at the idea of making it permanent and then chooses not to. But without concrete discussions and amended contracts, the situation should be considered temporary.

A friend of mine is HR for a major US organisation and this has been an issue for them -- especially as there are places in the US where her organisation is not authorised to conduct business, and there are employees that moved there without telling anyone.

Our office in Manila is subject to less tax etc. as it's Gov certified. However that means the office must be at a certain % of capacity and % of staff based there. We cannot just move everyone to WFH without huge cost implications. It feels unfair but it was never promised as permanent.

@PleasantBirthday

I think you're right but wfh has been going on so long and consistently that I think people have been lulled into a sense of security. Two years is a long time for people to not have made changes that are now very inconvenient to reverse.

I can understand this with something like getting a dog, where people maybe don't think through the ramifications completely and assume they'll work something out when the time comes to go back, only to discover it's more complicated than they expected. Although finding someone to walk your dog one day a fortnight can't be that hard. But moving hundreds of miles away isn't really something you do on impulse without thinking it through - surely?

I mean, I can see people getting lulled into a situation where getting to pick their kids up every day goes from a temporary bonus to feeling like a normal part of life, but I don't see how you can be slowly lulled over time into moving house!

Just because work can be done completely remotely in the face of a crisis and/or very pressing reason why it must be, doesn't mean work should be done completely remotely forever. I've been running the numbers for my organisation and virtual working has had a real, persistent drag effect on a number of important soft metrics. We won't go back to permanent in-office, but physical time together matters.

YANBU.

We will be doing 2 days in the office (minimum). I am finding the people who are most insistent that they couldn't possibly work from home are the same people where I have a real question mark over their output and performance generally, and who tend to never seem to be available when you need them at short notice...

(that should say "who say they couldn't possibly return to the office")

YANBU and I’m the biggest wfh fan !

They seriously lack judgment or any common sense.

Fair enough asking for it officially to continue, but why make permanent decisions on temporary arrangements.

YANBU
I've become permanently WFH - my boss gave up the lease on our office & is herself moving from Somerset to Glasgow, so yes I will be WFH for the foreseeable future. DHs is wfh pretty much permanently too (civil service) with the odd day in the office as needed. Mainly because they've reduced the office size & now there aren't enough desks for all staff permanently anyway, so they've moved to permanent hybrid.
We got rid of one car but where fully prepared to get another if needed. We're now looking to get a bigger house so we can have our own office spaces but in the same area.
I do feel sorry for those who were told WFH was permanent & then the company has changed its mind but, yes, they shouldn't have moved etc before it was in writing.

I am also a long term champion of flexible working, and even after the last two years, am having to argue with some senior managers about the principles of working from home/part time working etc. BUT I agree that making a full on life change based on no guarantee of permanence is a big risk.

I also totally agree on the childcare point. My current role is 100% remote and my children still go to after school club. I've been really firm with people that children at home while they work is OK in an emergency/very short term thing, but really can't be the norm. School holidays still require childcare if your child is too young to be left to their own devices for much of the day. People trying to work AND care for small children really will be less productive, and it gives working from home a bad reputation.

YANBU - I used to commute 3 hours by train once a week years ago (not UK). It’s completely doable, if expensive.

I voted YABU because your company might have been clear but others weren't. Some companies have also changed their minds.

These people are cf and are being unreasonable with what was a temporary arrangement.

If people aren’t happy with this proposal then move jobs or suck it up, they should be lucky they still have a job.

It’s ridiculous! It was only meant to be temporary and now people are stamping their feet because they can’t have it all their own way! If WFH was so productive how come everything has a backlog?

Yes we also have a few London weighting moaners. They've chosen to WFH and have moved miles away from London - so they've lost the 15% uplift.

Too bad. Feel free to keep it and attend the office 🤷🏻‍♀️

forcedfun
We will be doing 2 days in the office (minimum). I am finding the people who are most insistent that they couldn't possibly work from home are the same people where I have a real question mark over their output and performance generally, and who tend to never seem to be available when you need them at short notice...

I think if people's output and performance is not up to standard due to working from home they should be made work in the office. It is not fair on people like me working really hard from home.

@KeyErro

I voted YABU because your company might have been clear but others weren't. Some companies have also changed their minds.

Yes, I have heard of that and it’s really unfair. I personally still wouldn’t have made any life changes without an updated contract, but can’t blame people for believing management who told them it’d be permanently remote.

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?

YANBU! I work in London, and will go back 2d/w in the office (used to be 5d/w) when they are ready to have us which will be in 1-2 month's time. A colleague has kicked off because she has moved to Derby and can't commute that far! Obviously her case is not my business but it's crazy that people have made decisions like that without checking.

I have a friend who is American and was allowed by her company to travel back home for several weeks during lockdowns to work from there with slightly different hours than she normally did. She had to ask and get permission every time.

Now they’ve said that for tax reasons they can’t have people working from abroad. My friend thinks this is absolutely outrageous and claims she is being unfairly disadvantaged over people from the U.K. who can easily travel to see their family on the weekends whereas she now has to use her annual leave allowance