Has anyone refused to go back into the office?

[GreenPepperRed]

Just that really. Have a job that can easily be done working from home. Company is now saying compulsory 3 days in the office. Has anyone just not gone in and carried on working from home? How did that turn out?

The majority of my department is insisting they are not going in. Can confirm they are serious because I went in to the office a couple days back and there was probably 10% of the people in.

Intrigued what my company will do. Fire us all?

@PrimroseTheSmooth

Any argument that your job is merely the tasks you can do from home and that your employer gains nothing from having you there in person is an argument to outsource your role to somewhere cheaper. Indeed, this was the way things were going even before Covid: when I started work I had a secretary in the office next to mine. Now I send any secretarial work to someone in South Africa.

People will still generally go into the office for meetings though.

Any argument that your job is merely the tasks you can do from home and that your employer gains nothing from having you there in person is an argument to outsource your role to somewhere cheaper.

If my job could be done from somewhere cheaper, they'd have moved it already. We have teams in India and Brazil. Maybe in certain jobs / industries this applies, but not everyone's.

@QuirkyTurtle

Any argument that your job is merely the tasks you can do from home and that your employer gains nothing from having you there in person is an argument to outsource your role to somewhere cheaper.

If my job could be done from somewhere cheaper, they'd have moved it already. We have teams in India and Brazil. Maybe in certain jobs / industries this applies, but not everyone's.

The PP didn’t say that every job in the U.K. involving partial working from home would be outsourced.

She said that where people whose employer has requested their presence in the office for part of the week argue that they don’t need to be there because:

-in-person interaction isn’t important
-coaching younger team members isn’t important
-informal contact isn’t important
-they can easily solve problems without spending any time face to face with their colleagues thank you very much
-they work just as well at home despite their employer’s views to the contrary
-their job is just a set of flowcharted tasks that don’t require any in-person human finesse or intuition

They might as well wear a badge saying “have you realised that you could get someone to do this cheaper somewhere else? If not, I am here to suggest it to you”.

If any of my team members had a stop and decided that they didn’t want to spend any time in the office with the team for any of those reasons, all of which I’ve seen on this thread, that’s what I’d start thinking about. I’m a finance director. We have finance service centres in Eastern Europe. The people working there are excellent: perfect English and a quarter of the price of a U.K. employee. We have a software dev centre of excellence in Eastern Europe too. Why wouldn’t I choose someone there instead of a stroppy U.K. person who values walking their dog or saving money on childcare or watching telly more than performing their role effectively?

Maybe in certain jobs / industries this applies, but not everyone's.

Sure, but for some roles it will be enough to tip the balance.

STROP not stop!

@Iamthewombat Exactly.

@PrimroseTheSmooth

Any argument that your job is merely the tasks you can do from home and that your employer gains nothing from having you there in person is an argument to outsource your role to somewhere cheaper. Indeed, this was the way things were going even before Covid: when I started work I had a secretary in the office next to mine. Now I send any secretarial work to someone in South Africa.

Do you have to be in every day though?

As for people going on about not wanting WFH for their kids…there are still lots of jobs which remain people facing. Your children will have a choice to decide what they go into. It’s not my job to pave the way for your children’s careers and ways of working.

Wow. Just wow.

So anybody who would like to go into accounting, or commercial law, or the actuarial industry, or insurance, or any other well-paid professions other than medicine or being a barrister can jolly well suck up the isolation of working in their bedrooms because you’d prefer there to be no offices - so that you can’t be compelled to travel to one - or get a job in a shop where they can interact with people.

If any of my team members had a stop and decided that they didn’t want to spend any time in the office with the team for any of those reasons, all of which I’ve seen on this thread, that’s what I’d start thinking about. I’m a finance director. We have finance service centres in Eastern Europe. The people working there are excellent: perfect English and a quarter of the price of a U.K. employee. We have a software dev centre of excellence in Eastern Europe too. Why wouldn’t I choose someone there instead of a stroppy U.K. person who values walking their dog or saving money on childcare or watching telly more than performing their role effectively?

I don’t follow this logic. If you want and need people to be in the office then you have to pay salaries for that location. You can’t make a threat of finding cheaper staff overseas - because that would still mean they’re not in person. Defeating the original argument.

For me, it’s about employees realising that employers have long been taking the piss actually long before covid. There’s a reason we have such poor productivity- it’s because our worker rights are right at the bottom compared to similar countries. People don’t feel valued at all.

Employers should actually be a bit more flexible and try and a) understand that it’s a shift after two years of remote working b) the experience of senior colleagues isn’t the same as those further down the chain c) you can have more flexible policies and still achieve in person working etc.

For example, I like having a mix of in person vs wfh and would rather we worked it so that we all came together in the office on certain days. Then you make the most of collaborative working etc. then people can chose when to be at home to get stuff down.

It’s about balance. But employers are acting like they own their staff. This is what happens when you don’t have trade unions - the balance has gone too far the other way.

Do you have to be in every day though?

@Iggly, no, and I'm not arguing that people generally should be in every day- I'm in favour of some flexibility. My point is addressed to people who think they should never have to go in.

I guess I just have a very different managerial mindset. If people in my team can do their job in 2 hours, I don't care what they do with the rest of their time. In fact, I value those people more than those who need 10 hours to do their job each day.

But I'm in sales and performance is easy to track, you either meet your numbers or you don't.

Some graduates will prefer having an office based job, and some won't. In some industries it's possible and in others it isn't. I personally think 1 day per week is enough. I don't think it's 'entitled' to want to keep the same work/life balance we witnessed during the pandemic (again, WHERE POSSIBLE). For those that have been successfully working from home, I think it's unfair (and entitled) to demand they go back to the office because 'won't anyone think of the children'.

I'm going back 1 day per week from next week after 2 years of wfh and I'm genuinely very excited to go back. I'm encouraging it, and I know my team will be going back 1 day per week on average, but I won't demand more than that.

If any of my team members had a stop and decided that they didn’t want to spend any time in the office with the team for any of those reasons, all of which I’ve seen on this thread, that’s what I’d start thinking about. I’m a finance director. We have finance service centres in Eastern Europe. The people working there are excellent: perfect English and a quarter of the price of a U.K. employee. We have a software dev centre of excellence in Eastern Europe too. Why wouldn’t I choose someone there instead of a stroppy U.K. person who values walking their dog or saving money on childcare or watching telly more than performing their role effectively?

Yes, how dare people value saving money or a good quality of life. You can't argue that they need to be in the office to perform their job effectively and then say that you could outsource their work. You also need to take into account that someone may only be able to work at home most of the time because they have experience in the job. A new employee may need to come in more often which could be a bit difficult if they're not in the UK.

You can't argue that they need to be in the office to perform their job effectively and then say that you could outsource their work

You're making the same point, just put the other way. Either they need to be in (at least some of the time) and so can't be outsourced, or they don't need to be in ever and so perhaps could be outsourced, depending on the role. People arguing they never need to be in the office are arguing they're in the latter camp.

It's happening already- look at how many places now outsource things like IT support.

I’m a team of one. I have all my kit set up at home and work way longer than my part time hours precisely because I work from home.

If they were cool with me working my 9-4 rather than my 9.30-6,7,8 then fine. I done walk a dog or sit a watch daytime tv. I’m a grown ass adult who takes their job seriously.

You're making the same point, just put the other way. Either they need to be in (at least some of the time) and so can't be outsourced, or they don't need to be in ever and so perhaps could be outsourced, depending on the role. People arguing they never need to be in the office are arguing they're in the latter camp.

As I said, they may not need to be in the office much because they have a lot of experience. They may only need to come in for the occasional meeting.

@QuirkyTurtle

I guess I just have a very different managerial mindset. If people in my team can do their job in 2 hours, I don't care what they do with the rest of their time. In fact, I value those people more than those who need 10 hours to do their job each day.

But I'm in sales and performance is easy to track, you either meet your numbers or you don't.

Some graduates will prefer having an office based job, and some won't. In some industries it's possible and in others it isn't. I personally think 1 day per week is enough. I don't think it's 'entitled' to want to keep the same work/life balance we witnessed during the pandemic (again, WHERE POSSIBLE). For those that have been successfully working from home, I think it's unfair (and entitled) to demand they go back to the office because 'won't anyone think of the children'.

I'm going back 1 day per week from next week after 2 years of wfh and I'm genuinely very excited to go back. I'm encouraging it, and I know my team will be going back 1 day per week on average, but I won't demand more than that.

How many times do posters who work with, or manage, younger people have to explain that none of those younger people, in their experience, want to work from home most of the time? That, in fact, they want to work from an office for at least part of the week and that their work/life balance has been impaired by working from shared housing or a bedroom at their parents’ house? Post after post saying the same thing, but no, you know best.

You are the only person on the thread claiming that younger people want to spend most of their time working from home. Based on your own personal views and what you say your team prefers. They might not: perhaps they have been cowed by your ‘managerial mindset’.

If you manage a sales team that mostly works from home I suppose you are doing cold calling? I don’t think that you can really compare that to more skilled professions for which professional qualifications are needed. People working in those fields, or aspiring to join those fields, absolutely need time in the office to model behaviours and learn how things are done.

@Belladonna12

If any of my team members had a stop and decided that they didn’t want to spend any time in the office with the team for any of those reasons, all of which I’ve seen on this thread, that’s what I’d start thinking about. I’m a finance director. We have finance service centres in Eastern Europe. The people working there are excellent: perfect English and a quarter of the price of a U.K. employee. We have a software dev centre of excellence in Eastern Europe too. Why wouldn’t I choose someone there instead of a stroppy U.K. person who values walking their dog or saving money on childcare or watching telly more than performing their role effectively?

Yes, how dare people value saving money or a good quality of life. You can't argue that they need to be in the office to perform their job effectively and then say that you could outsource their work. You also need to take into account that someone may only be able to work at home most of the time because they have experience in the job. A new employee may need to come in more often which could be a bit difficult if they're not in the UK.

I absolutely can argue that my team need to be in the office for part of the week to perform their jobs effectively. I manage the team. I notice when we’re working effectively and when we are not, and when we meet in person we solve complex problems much more quickly.

As for the ‘experience in the job means that you don’t need to be in the office’ argument: don’t be silly. I need my experienced people to be there with the rest of the team. So that the team can work effectively, exchange information, come up with ideas for problem solving, share experience and ideas.

@Belladonna12

Ok - I agree that it doesn't mean people don't have human contact all day. But it is much of a stretch to think there will be people who live alone or have difficult home lives?

It isn't a stretch but nobody is suggesting people should work at home if they don't want to.

And of course not everyone is the same as me 🙄 but I can't see how everyone just sat at home on laptops is genuinely helpful for most of the population. Their poor eyes for a start!

Why assume that laptops are only used at home? In my workplace everyone uses a laptop whether they are at home or in the office so going back to work won't make any difference.

Yes, I use a laptop at the office now, but that's because of the pandemic. When they had to buy everyone a laptop they got rid of the desktops. Luckily I do have a proper screen at the office.

"nobody is suggesting people should work at home if they don't want to."
Well, that has been happening over the last 2 years and there are people actively working towards most white collar jobs being done remotely.
Some employers are selling their offices and moving to hot desking so yes, if a large number of employees choose to work from home, that has an effect on those who do want to come to the office.
I know of people who want to go back, but not if they won't have a fixed office and will have to carry their laptop every day anyway.

For me, wfh does mean I don't have human contact between 9 and 5 and many days not at all, except for online team meetings with no time for chit-chat.

@PrimroseTheSmooth

Do you have to be in every day though?

@Iggly, no, and I'm not arguing that people generally should be in every day- I'm in favour of some flexibility. My point is addressed to people who think they should never have to go in.

That’s fair enough. I don’t think people do need to be in everyday but should be in some of the time

I always think it's weird that people think WFH means perching on the end of a bed in your shared house bedroom. There are plenty of other options including co-working, and nothing stops you going into your employer office if you want to.

I don't know why this polarises people so much. Employers who are flexible have the most committed employees and the best results.

I absolutely can argue that my team need to be in the office for part of the week to perform their jobs effectively. I manage the team. I notice when we’re working effectively and when we are not, and when we meet in person we solve complex problems much more quickly

Yes but you can’t then argue you’d outsource their job for cheaper (remote) labour as then how would you get them in?

You just need to be more flexible. You don’t own your staff!

Absolutely. I have a ds in his early 20s. Wfh is not popular in the least with him or his friends from home and university.

One of his friends is training with a big accountancy firm. All wfh. All training and audit files done from home. In the past the arid nature of the training was offset by being able to roam round various clients with your fellow trainees and, of course, major bants/hook ups/ romances and friendships etc etc. Well, that’s down the pan if your only contact with your peers is a seeing them in the corner of a zoom call and at best an awkward periodic social meet-up.

we have a few people refusing to come in for the required number of days, and they are now in the process of being fired.

Are you bollocks working two extra hours a day because you aren’t commuting. Pull the other one

I think you'll find people are. My DH has a flexible working arrangement of two short days and three long days. Since he worked from home, the short days have become normal length ones.

My “absolutely” was to @Iamthewombat !