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?

"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."

That's an argument AGAINST wfh if it's being used as a source of free labour.

@CallyfromBlakes7

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

so you have hobbies and meet people locally instead. People are allowed to make friends away from work!

And it's probably better to avoid "major bants", TBH.

My friends won't come out during the week and I don't think I'm the only person in that situation :(

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

Not really, because the original question concerned people refusing to go in, even in OP's case on a flexible basis, and if that happened work wouldn't be done "in person" anyway. Unless it's being suggested that folk are dismissed and replaced, and I wouldn't expect that idea to be popular either

I can't know how many posters were around in the '70s, but it's often forgotten that the mulish "all management are bastards" attitude is partly why so much industry went overseas in the first place - not the only reason of course, but a factor all the same

And many of those who were constantly striking back then insisted "It'll never happen" too

All employees have the rights to make one statutory application a year for a permanent change to their contract, I believe, although employers also have the right to refuse them

This is correct, and while employers quite rightly have to give a good reason (as opposed to "I just don't like it") that's not likely to be difficult if WFH has led to a lack of productivity/customer satisfaction despite claims that it all works wonderfully

It's absolutely right for employers to be as flexible as possible within business needs, but for some whatever's offered will quite simply never be enough - hence, perhaps, the "Shan't!!" attitude which tends to appear

I have!

I told my employer I'm pregnant back in November. They haven't done me a risk assessment to return to the office so I have not returned. I go on mat leave in 3 months so I don't think I'll be going in at all before then. 🤷🏻‍♀️

"Regardless, your desire to work in an office isn't more important than other people’s desire to work at home, particularly if the latter saves money ."

Saves money for the employer, not the employee who has to pay for heat and lighting all day and all the businesses going down the drain because nobody goes into town.
So I'd argue that my desire is no less important than yours.

I was Also wfh during pandemic pre pandemic I was in the office 5 days but my company had now introduced hybrid and we are required to do 2 days. One fixed and the other flexi. I'm in a team of 8 and there's been 3 of us who have stuck to this and the others haven't. My manager went nuts at them last week as they always have excuses as she said to them they worked in the office 5 days before there no excuses anymore. Our offices are still very covid safe and I've never felt unsafe at any point. She also told them if they ain't happy to look for other jobs

@Gwenhwyfar

"Regardless, your desire to work in an office isn't more important than other people’s desire to work at home, particularly if the latter saves money ."

Saves money for the employer, not the employee who has to pay for heat and lighting all day and all the businesses going down the drain because nobody goes into town.
So I'd argue that my desire is no less important than yours.

The employee might have to pay for lighting and heat but they don't have to pay travel costs which are a lot higher for many people. You argument that it will effect businesses in town centres assumes that everyone's workplace is in a town centre. Most aren't.

The employee might have to pay for lighting and heat but they don't have to pay travel costs which are a lot higher for many people.

I think it's just worth noting that this is in practice pretty regressive - higher-paid employees are much more likely to have had long commutes, and so have benefited hugely financially, whereas lower-paid staff are much more likely to live near where they work and so won't have benefited from reduction in travel costs but will really feel the increased energy costs, which have a much bigger impact on them than on high earners.

"The employee might have to pay for lighting and heat but they don't have to pay travel costs which are a lot higher for many people."

And not for others.

"You argument that it will effect businesses in town centres assumes that everyone's workplace is in a town centre. Most aren't."

Many, many are though and those businesses won't be moving to the residential areas to make up for it. Our town centres are already suffering with the move to online shopping and out of town complexes.

@HardbackWriter

The employee might have to pay for lighting and heat but they don't have to pay travel costs which are a lot higher for many people.

I think it's just worth noting that this is in practice pretty regressive - higher-paid employees are much more likely to have had long commutes, and so have benefited hugely financially, whereas lower-paid staff are much more likely to live near where they work and so won't have benefited from reduction in travel costs but will really feel the increased energy costs, which have a much bigger impact on them than on high earners.

Thanks for saying this. I don't have the kind of job that's worth commuting more than 45 minutes for so my commutes have always been either a local bus/train ticket (sometimes covered by the employer anyway) or walking. To wfh I need unlimited internet as well as heating and light on all day every day. I'm lucky to have been compensated during compulsory wfh, but this will stop if wfh becomes the norm.

Everyone else in my team has left the company and my boss is in New York so I'm working from home for the foreseeable future.

I don't have the kind of job that's worth commuting more than 45 minutes for so my commutes have always been either a local bus/train ticket (sometimes covered by the employer anyway) or walking.

That's a good point. Lots of people with quite ordinary jobs have a significant commute; high paid professionals do not have the monopoly on this. But the media will have you think otherwise

@tootiredtospeak

It's just so selfish to future generations. I dont get it when our kids were at home there was an outcry. It's not just about their education it's the social interaction the isolation and all the other stuff you do not get sat staring at a screen. This applies to adults too and I dont not want the working world to change so much that my now 10 and 5 year olds grow up get a job to what sit in their bedrooms and go to work. Nooooooo they need to see other people leave their house go on a work lunch a work night out make work freinds. Hybrid working is great but people who use that umbrella to permanently WFH are screwing the next generation with a I am alright jack attitude and for what.

Well, as an employer, I'm not willing to roll back on the significant improvements permanent WFH/very flexible hybrid working has brought for my employees, their happiness, and our company's productivity just because you think it's better not to.

If your children are so bothered when they grow up, they can go and work for one of the many, many companies which will still have offices. Luckily, those that are bothered will have plentiful options to WFH instead.

@Gwenhwyfar

"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."

That's an argument AGAINST wfh if it's being used as a source of free labour.

I agree and I've told him. But on the other hand he saves 3 hours commuting time a day (and the money and stress involved).

(so gains 15 hours and probably gives about 6 back)

@Gwenhwyfar

"The employee might have to pay for lighting and heat but they don't have to pay travel costs which are a lot higher for many people."

And not for others.

"You argument that it will effect businesses in town centres assumes that everyone's workplace is in a town centre. Most aren't."

Many, many are though and those businesses won't be moving to the residential areas to make up for it. Our town centres are already suffering with the move to online shopping and out of town complexes.

So you are arguing that by not working in town centres, employess are spending less money on lunch? If so, that will be another ways those who work at home save money.

@HardbackWriter

The employee might have to pay for lighting and heat but they don't have to pay travel costs which are a lot higher for many people.

I think it's just worth noting that this is in practice pretty regressive - higher-paid employees are much more likely to have had long commutes, and so have benefited hugely financially, whereas lower-paid staff are much more likely to live near where they work and so won't have benefited from reduction in travel costs but will really feel the increased energy costs, which have a much bigger impact on them than on high earners.

Do you have any statistics showing that working at home has benefits higher paid homeworkers but not lower paid workers? I am working at home without any heating or lighting on so it isn't costing much. The train into the town centre would be £8.

I'm probably paid a bit above average, and live about 10 miles from the office. On travel alone (train plus petrol to the station) I save around £30 per week, plus purchasing food from shops, cafes etc for breakfast and lunch (because I'm not always organised enough to make lunch in advance and our office has no facilities for heating up a cheap can of soup or similar). In total I reckon physically going to the office rather than WFH costs me around £50 per week.

We have decent internet anyway, and I'm prob having the heating on maybe an hour extra a day to take the chill off, which will obvs stop in the next few weeks when it warms up a bit. The only additional electricity I'm using is for my laptop / screen. Definitely not costing the £200ish per month I save by WFH.

" I am working at home without any heating or lighting on so it isn't costing much. "

In the dark and cold in February then? How is that good for anyone except your employer's building rent?

"he saves 3 hours commuting time a day (and the money and stress involved)."

He's adding stress by working more and not even being paid for it.

"So you are arguing that by not working in town centres, employess are spending less money on lunch? If so, that will be another ways those who work at home save money."

Those who spend money at lunchtime are usually choosing too. If you want to save money you can always bring your sandwiches although I get the point of the poster above that she isn't always organised and can't heat things up at work.

@Coffeepot72

I don't have the kind of job that's worth commuting more than 45 minutes for so my commutes have always been either a local bus/train ticket (sometimes covered by the employer anyway) or walking.

That's a good point. Lots of people with quite ordinary jobs have a significant commute; high paid professionals do not have the monopoly on this. But the media will have you think otherwise

We're making opposite points. I don't think that many people with ordinary jobs have long commutes because it didn't make sense even before the pandemic.

In the dark and cold in February then? How is that good for anyone except your employer's building rent?

It isn't dark until 5.30 and at the moment not cold. I won't put the heating on until the evening but I would do that if I was work. Do you seriously need it on all day at the moment?

We're making opposite points. I don't think that many people with ordinary jobs have long commutes because it didn't make sense even before the pandemic.

What do you call a long commute? A lot of people with ordinary jobs travel on trains and/or buses which can cost quite a bit.