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?

Not sure why so many are dismissing the idea that a blanket WFH ban could be grounds for sex discrimination?

An estate agent won £185k in a case on the grounds of sex discrimination as her employer wouldn't allow the small amount of flexibility she needed to manage her caring responsibilities around work (leaving earlier to get to Nursery before it closed).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58473802

Yes men can be the main carer, but in a society where it's usually the woman, an inflexible policy with no business grounds that then makes it harder for people to juggle work with pickups etc is undoubtedly grounds for sex discrimination. Especially where people have shown that WFH wasn't detrimental to the business.

@QuirkyTurtle

*You are too funny. You like working from home, so you have appointed yourself spokesperson for the 20-somethings of Britain.

Lest we suspect that you are inventing evidence to suit yourself, you inform us that you ‘climbed the corporate ladder quickly’ (nobody in a senior role uses phrases like that. That’s a tip from me to you, for free, to save you from making a fool of yourself) and that anyone who sees any value in working from an office is an ‘old boomer’ who likes being ‘a slave to the corporation’. Hahaha!*

Ok well done on completely misunderstanding my entire post.

And yes I acknowledge my views are entirely anecdotal and I can't speak for everyone. But I will stand up for the people in my team, as a good manager does (that's a tip from me to you, for free).

I’m filling my bingo card up.

‘You have completely misunderstood my post’: check.

Repeating something back from my post in an attempt to score a point, but actually making yourself look even sillier: check.

Refuse if you want but if I was your employer I'd find a way to get rid of you. Get a job with a contract that lets you work from home if you love it so much.

@CheeryTreeBlossom

Not sure why so many are dismissing the idea that a blanket WFH ban could be grounds for sex discrimination?

An estate agent won £185k in a case on the grounds of sex discrimination as her employer wouldn't allow the small amount of flexibility she needed to manage her caring responsibilities around work (leaving earlier to get to Nursery before it closed).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58473802

Yes men can be the main carer, but in a society where it's usually the woman, an inflexible policy with no business grounds that then makes it harder for people to juggle work with pickups etc is undoubtedly grounds for sex discrimination. Especially where people have shown that WFH wasn't detrimental to the business.

There was much more to that case than ‘you can’t work from home when you feel like it’.

Anyone who worked from home because of the pandemic and hopes to use sex discrimination as grounds for swerving returning to the office is going to be disappointed.

Your employer is perfectly within their rights. Whether employers will enforce their rights or not is naturally going to vary, depending on what their priorities are.

We have one person who hasn’t come back but I haven’t asked as why as that’s between him and the manager.

I think 3 days per week is pretty reasonable to be honest if you were office based 5 days per week previously. I would maybe ask that this was put in place formally so it doesn't creep up to 4 days, then 5 again but at the moment your employer is compromising and not enforcing the terms of your contract (if your contract states you are employed to work at your office location.)

WFH can be a nightmare for employers. If contracts are changed to be home based that means your employer has to take responsibility for DSE assessments for your home, PAT testing, it increases insurance costs as the company then has 200 places of work instead of 1 etc etc. Plus some people are taking the piss, I know absolutely loads of people doing all the school runs during working hours, walking the dog (not at lunchtime), running errands during the working day. I'm not saying it's everyone and on the other hand there is increased flexibility in terms of being able to do a few hours in the evening, or being able to really focus and be productive in a quieter environment but a balance is needed and at the end of the day your employer is offering that.

My workplace has moved to 50% in office. For most people that looks like 2 days in the office one week and 3 the next on an alternating pattern. Our team has agreed 2 days a week that we'll all be in together and that means we benefit from the social side, seeing one another, meetings with manager done in person, a quick chat with someone from another team etc. I think it's the workplaces where it's totally flexible that see the fewest people working from the office, if you are commuting in order to sit in an empty office then that can feel a bit pointless but if your 3 days a week are coordinated with other colleagues I think that can bring a lot of benefits.

I do feel for people with long commutes eg into London but then what happens to their salaries. If they previously got London weighting but are now working from Aberdeen permanently then that salary should be reviewed. There are going to be a lot of tough conversations between employers and employees.

If you're WFH you should have childcare in place anyway. Whatever your responsibilities outside of work, you shouldn't be dealing with them in work time.

Granted - however many senior mgmt fail to realise that the pandemic has allowed people to stop putting children in chlldcare/school settings from 7-7, or employing wraparound care/live in care to enable very early starts/late finishes.
People are quite rightly challenging the need to be present on a mandated basis where there is a strong likelihood they will just spend the day on Teams calls anyway with a two+ hour commute on top.

I work for an organisation that has thus far taken a reasonable approach asking people to come in for more team building/collegiate style workshop meetings though I am starting to see grumbling about potentially making some level of attendance mandatory. At mgmt level though it is trickier to juggle childcare as my office days are not set in stone.

People complaining about their new dog, the length of commute from their new rural location etc are just pissing mgmt off. Your lifestyle choice is your problem. You are naive to think that it will cut you any slack and is more likely to encourage a hard line approach. Far better to have a reasonable conversation about whether a 2 day could be piloted first.

What I don't know is whether 3 days as a "majority" of a working week stops employees from having a better business case for flexible working long term?

@bevelino

We have hybrid working but employees are expected to be in the office two to three days per week. For those who no longer wish to work in the office they will have their employment contracts amended as thy have unilaterally changed their contract of employment.

This will inevitably mean lower pay rises and bonuses in the future because we have offices all over the U.K including London.. Employees in the north of England are paid less than employees in London and therefore it would be unfair if employees who have a London contract worked from home but received the same pay rises and bonuses as before.

The second paragraph is so true. If the argument is that working remotely works:-

1. London and higher cost locations will see pay decrease.
2. As positions become vacant or are created, these will be offered at lower rates to people nationally and allowed to be remote.
3. Eventually the company will adopt the infrastructure to hire lower cost staff in other countries with lower cost staff (or go through an organisation that can arrange and administer these resources).

I am in a large global organisation. I see 1 happening now in our year end payrise.
3 has already happened for us a decade ago, but a lot of the talent can only be easily found in UK/US (this will change over time). I realise this may seem far-fetched for a small family organisation at this time.
I think 2 will happen gradually. There may be incentives (higher pay/rates or promotion opportunities) for the people who work in the office. But you'll eventually see lower pay offered in job ads for work that can be done remotely.

@Firkinhavinalaugh

If your contract needs to be changed to accommodate wfh (most do if originally started in an office environment) then you need to consider other aspects that will need to be changed.

You will need to have the correct wfh office set up to ensure Oc Health - your tax status changes, the companies responsibilities change, the costs to the company changes. Don’t expect a company to jump at this, if your company owns the building there is no cost saving for you to work from home, if they rent they may need to move the office to smaller premises.

There are plenty of associated costs with this from business cards, headed paper, web changes, doubling up of equipment as examples. So this could well impact your salary, pay rises etc for years to come. Whilst many employees may have saved money during the pandemic wfh, companies didn’t and this will be reflected going forward.

Ultimately it’s up to you, but don’t expect it to always fall favourably.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding tax status changes or occupational health having to make sure you have the correct office setup. If that hasn't had to change in the last two years while people have worked at home why would it need to change now? Do you work at home yourself? I have worked at home for many years and there have been no tax or occupational health changes, letter headed paper changes etc.

I'm a teacher so obviously don't have the option to wfh but am surprised that so many people are digging their heels in about staying at home when it was only ever a temporary measure.

The people I know who wfh all admit - privately, amongst friends - that they do less work and certainly my experience as a customer suggests that wfh is not always as productive as working alongside colleagues and other departments in a shared office.

If you are wfh and genuinely think you are more productive, that the business that employs you benefits by you being at home, then this should be easy to demonstrate and your employer would be a fool to say no.

It may be that you are as productive but others are not, and they can't discriminate, so everyone needs to come back.

It may be that the business is suffering in ways that you yourself cannot see - other staff losing motivation, loss of teamwork, difficult to train new staff.

If you just prefer wfh for personal reasons then I think you should recognise that that isn't your employers problem and go back to the office or look elsewhere.

In dp's company, the staff refusing to come back and threatening to leave are the ones everyone expected to do exactly that, and most won't be missed.

I find it extremely important for the sake of young people that this new status quo is maintained. The old boomer mentality of working yourself to death is gone.

There’s no excuse for using offensive ageist language.

My organisation has had to roll back on on what were initially quite strict criteria for going into the office and allow people to go in when and if they prefer it. Without this we would have lost a lot of mainly young talent as it was the young, flat dwelling cohort who were struggling with mostly wfh. Permanently home working works best for people with plenty of space to keep work and home life separate.

Of course MN has a significant cohort who have saved a lot on childcare and who value that more highly than networking and effective collaboration with colleagues. Personally I had numerous interactions with distracted colleagues last week who clearly hadn’t organised childcare for half term. The crisis is over, people should not still be juggling work and kids, it does have a detrimental impact and taking the piss will lead to a greater requirement to be back in the office.

@catgirl1976

It’s interesting

We are back in 3 / 4 days a week so I’m looking for another job as there is no justifiable reason. My role can be down (and has been done) perfectly well remotely

A blanket “you must be back in the office x days a week” runs the risk of indirect sex discrimination imo. However that’s not a fight I can be arsed to have so I’ll just get another job and vote with my feet as will my colleagues

Indirect sex discrimination? What a load of shite.

I haven’t been back much. I have a 3 at home 2 in the office working pattern. My boss is happy enough for me to start that when I’m happy to. Everyone else is expected to be in the office full time. They know my reasons and are happy with them. And before I get the usual “oh but they’ll think less of you” They promoted me at the end of last year. They would be screwed if I left and they know it.

@QuirkyTurtle My experience in professional services is that our graduates in their first 3 years are largely saying how much better it is being back in the office than wfh.

Appreciate it may be different in other roles, but in an organisation where a lot of learning on the job happens, relying on coaching from more senior team members, gathering in the office (or at client sites) has real value.

I completely agree we are very unlikely to return to 5 days a week in an office, but I think 2/3 days / week on average through the year is likely to be the minimum for people who want to progress.

Hopefully they will fire everyone that has decided their bosses no longer are indeed their bosses and that they can set their own working place and hours etc! Unbelievable that you think you can just choose your own workplace because you can’t be arsed leaving the house 🤯 if you don’t like aspects of your job get another you can’t just make your own rules up that’s not how employment works

Depending on your role I guess .Surely though going against their wishes would be detrimental in the long run ? For promotion prospects may not be good

I’m a teacher so obviously don't have the option to wfh but am surprised that so many people are digging their heels in about staying at home when it was only ever a temporary measure.

But a measure that has been proven to be successful for many people, companies, organisations. The more forward thinking less dinosaur companies were already moving to a hybrid, this simply pushed many of those who were reluctant by demonstrating to them, actually there are some benefits to it.

I have worked for companies who had a hybrid WFH for about ten years.

[quote macshoto]@QuirkyTurtle My experience in professional services is that our graduates in their first 3 years are largely saying how much better it is being back in the office than wfh.

Appreciate it may be different in other roles, but in an organisation where a lot of learning on the job happens, relying on coaching from more senior team members, gathering in the office (or at client sites) has real value.

I completely agree we are very unlikely to return to 5 days a week in an office, but I think 2/3 days / week on average through the year is likely to be the minimum for people who want to progress.[/quote]
I see! Yes I know my views are anecdotal and probably tied to my industry. I work in sales which is already notorious for its flexibility, especially since it's very easy to measure performance against numbers and we've seen in increase in performance rather than decrease. Reading all these comments though I can see that for some industries and workplaces this may not apply.

I've trained most of my team during the pandemic and definitely agree some things are easier in person. During training stages I probably would be stricter on office work.

I am not saying office work should be illegal, I'm just an advocate for offering the choice, if performance isn't affected.

To add a bit more anecdote to the mix, about 90% of our 20s/ early 30s employees are keen to be back in the office a few days a week. They've basically "got their tasks done" while WFH and have done their best but we, and they, feel they haven't had the access to informal learning that comes from just being around more experienced specialists. With all the effort we've made at delivering training and mentoring remotely, it still hasn't given them the same pace of career development we would expect.

Plus most of them share houses, sometimes with strangers, so are living and working from a single room - two years of this has been terrible for mental health, understandably.

It will of course take time to rebuild confidence about travelling and being around people, so it makes sense to start gradually. But we do need to start.

Long term, I would expect those who can work a hybrid pattern to see their careers accelerate past those who remain fully remote. And yes, I know once you get to a certain seniority that might not be the case, but as employers we need to give people the best chance to get up to that level first.

Workers should 100% agitate for better working conditions, not sit around waiting for them to be granted. The best way to do this is as a group. OP's colleagues shouldn't just refuse on an ad hoc basis though, they should actually team up and make a formal request to keep WFH. Cite whatever numbers and examples that show your performance hasn't been affected, cite improvements to your work-life balance and mental health.

Staff have strength in numbers. Presumably most if not all of them are good at their jobs and it's in the company's interests to retain them. Hold the line - you have more power than you think if you work together and it's a completely reasonable request.

Posters talking the big talk about "I'd just FIRE YOU ALL" seem pretty ignorant about how good companies operate. Good companies hire employees who are good at their jobs, not identikit drones who can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

In many companies I know about, returning to the office hasn't been a blanket order from on high, it's been negotiated with staff, particularly talented staff, and what they want has been fully taken into account.

@gannett

Workers should 100% agitate for better working conditions, not sit around waiting for them to be granted. The best way to do this is as a group. OP's colleagues shouldn't just refuse on an ad hoc basis though, they should actually team up and make a formal request to keep WFH. Cite whatever numbers and examples that show your performance hasn't been affected, cite improvements to your work-life balance and mental health.

Staff have strength in numbers. Presumably most if not all of them are good at their jobs and it's in the company's interests to retain them. Hold the line - you have more power than you think if you work together and it's a completely reasonable request.

Posters talking the big talk about "I'd just FIRE YOU ALL" seem pretty ignorant about how good companies operate. Good companies hire employees who are good at their jobs, not identikit drones who can be replaced at the drop of a hat.

In many companies I know about, returning to the office hasn't been a blanket order from on high, it's been negotiated with staff, particularly talented staff, and what they want has been fully taken into account.

Well said

If your contract says you are working from the office you either go back or change to a job were wfh is the case🤷🏻‍♀️
Out of curiosity why are you so against it?

Largely a company CAN tell you what to do or you can look for a different job. Problem solved.

So in answer to tour question OP if someone on the shielded list whose condition is protected by DDA and whose employers seem to be choosing to bypass OH recommendations can be expected to return to work then I think it depends on your employer how they proceed so you can be strongly encouraged to return to work.

"But a measure that has been proven to be successful for many people, companies, organisations."

I think the employer has the final say on whether it has proven successful and should continue. It will have worked for some, as evidenced on here, with many companies electing to continue wfh or allow a hybrid arrangement, but not for others, regardless of what the employee thinks or wants.