To be agog at this incentive to Work from office?

[GretaGip]

DS1's chum is 18 months through a Grad Role and has just secured another job with a different company

They are incentivised to work in the office 4 days a week by 15% of their salary, with a minimum of £10,000. It's not included in income for pensionable purposes.

AIBU to think this is not normal??

I'm feeling quite old and out of touch

Given that I would happily be in full time, this would be a no brainer!

I'm not surprised - I don't know a single person in my social circles who wants to go back to the office more than two days a week. In fact, I'm looking for permanently remote jobs because my mental health is so much better working from home. Businesses that insist on their employees being under their watchful eye when it's not actually necessary will need to do something to gain competitive advantage.

I would only agree to be on-site four days a week for a stonking pay rise.

I can see WFH jobs continuing but being lower paid than the equivalent office based jobs. Already fully WFH jobs they can now recruit from a much bigger pool, not just nationally but internationally, so why advertise at the same level when a staff member leaves, but if you need someone in the office, you'll have to pay a premium for that.

Makes sense, people have saved huge amounts by WFH so any pay incentive needs to outweigh the savings as a minimum. That's before you get onto work/life balance and time saved by not commuting.

My DS is at uni and did an internship with an accounting and consulting firm last spring. They've offered him a full-time job when he graduates in May. They announced last fall that staff can work from anywhere in the US, so he'll probably be able to move back in with us, which would save him lots of money.

The original offer was for $62k per year but they've just raised it to $68k to stay competitive. I'm thrilled for him but shocked that he'll be making that much right out of uni.

My friend was saying that young grads really need to lean from people and day to day interactions
And learn from us older grizzled ones
Otherwise they just can’t progress and learn like we did when working remotely

So there is a sound logic behind this

I wouldn't because I work for a company in the next city offer. We are in 2 days a week and I'd never go back to 5.

I’ve heard of a couple of employers doing this. The employee gets to choose between WFH and working from the office (or a hybrid between the two) and their salary is set accordingly.

I can see a lot of sense in it, particularly in London/the South East.

@Thisisworsethananticpated

My friend was saying that young grads really need to lean from people and day to day interactions And learn from us older grizzled ones Otherwise they just can’t progress and learn like we did when working remotely

So there is a sound logic behind this

100% agree with this.

Our trainees have missed out on being involved in the day-to-day work that they would definitely be involved in had everyone been in the office. From a development perspective it just can’t be replicated by Teams calls, hence we’re all back 3 days a week.

Is it really EXTRA for being in the office or a REDUCTION for a 3 day week?
I doubt that they’re paying extra only for a day. whether it’s a good idea probably depends on the whole package, base salary and pension .

Where shall I send my CV? I have many transferable skills, and can’t wait for my risk averse employer to send us back to the office.

@Thisisworsethananticpated

My friend was saying that young grads really need to lean from people and day to day interactions And learn from us older grizzled ones Otherwise they just can’t progress and learn like we did when working remotely

So there is a sound logic behind this

Exactly this. I feel so sorry for our grads from the last two years. Their advancement has definitely been slower than the cohorts from previous years.

Because I am in most days I have ended up being the unofficial supervisor of all this years intake while their official supervisors have barely met them in person. Doesn’t particularly bother me as they are a great group and my effort was acknowledged in my end of year bonus so not complaining.

But what makes me annoyed as those people sitting at home rather than doing their supervisory role benefitted at the start of their own careers from the support they are currently unwilling to provide others

How on earth are they making that non-taxable?!

Are you sure this friend isn't telling tall tales?

@IbizaToTheNorfolkBroads

Where shall I send my CV? I have many transferable skills, and can’t wait for my risk averse employer to send us back to the office.

Exactly this. And the "I love wfh brigade" always seem to forget that actually not everyone has a suitable place to work from at home. My DS is currently looking for jobs. He doesn't want wfh because he would be working out of his bedroom which can't be good for anyone's long term morale.

Sounds fairly normal to me. My DC and a number of others in their social circle are professionals on £60-75 per year, in their mid to late 20s. Being offered another £8 to 10K doesn't sound like something that unusual.

I wonder how many jobs you could hold down working from home.

I know the type of work I used to do I could do in a couple of hours if I put my mind to it. Those who could do it easily made it stretch out the day as there wasn’t any benefit in working quickly.
If I worked from home I could have got paid twice or 3 times for doing a days work.

LOL £60K to £75K a year, not £60 to 70!

£60K to £75K a year, not £60 to £75!!! OMG get an edit button MN!!!!!!!!!

I do agree it is becoming clear now that whilst grads can be taught the job skills remotely, there is a gap being left because the learning on that profession's / workplace's behaviour needs to come through modelling and interactions not tasks or instructions.

I don't think things can or should flip back to the old way because it was also very flawed, just that the future needs more thought.

@SlipperyLizard

I think employers who allow more home working will start to have a competitive advantage over those who want people in the office, so those that want people in the office will have to pay more to attract employees.

I like going into the office, but I’m not certain it is necessary to do it more than once (maybe twice) a week.

I think companies in creative / cognitive / highly collaborative sectors who figure out how to correctly incentivise teams to retain elements of in-person collaboration will have a competitive advantage over their peers who can't.

There's a reason the highest performing teams work largely together, in person.

@WouldIBeATwat

How on earth are they making that non-taxable?!

I thought it was non pensionable, you still pay tax, a lot of bonuses are like that, DH's was I think

There's a reason the highest performing teams work largely together, in person.

What are you basing that on? Scientific research and evidence or your personal belief and experience?

I think it's long overdue, tbh. You save not only on costs (travel, clothes) on going into an office, but on commute time as well. Time is money, and that's long been overlooked by many employers, hence the battle over carers/social workers/district nurses getting paid for travel time between clients.

It sounds like a bonus rather than a salary raise though which obviously isn't so good