To be reluctant to pay travel costs again

[Subaru4336]

Pre-pandemic I used to have a 4+hr commute, and worked in the office 3 days/week, leaving home ~5am and returning home after 7pm. Because I was travelling 3 days a week, an annual season ticket was the cheapest option.

Fast forward to now, and my company are wanting to mandate a minimum of 1 day/week in the office. This would represent a cost of ~£300/mth, which I obviously haven't been paying for the last 2.5yrs.

If I were to go to the office, I would still spend a significant time on Teams calls, as my team are spread across various locations (and have different offices as their local hubs).

We've had below inflation payrises for at least the last 10 years, and so I'm feeling somewhat resentful that my household budget has to take a £300/mth hit, on top of all the other rising costs, just to sit somewhere different on Teams, and be 'present' in the office.

Am I being unreasonable?!

I wouldn't worry too much about it. We are meant to be in two days a week, I go in once a month and nobody has noticed/cared/said anything. Maybe you could go in once a fortnight and see how it goes. But if you really do just sit on Teams meetings all day there is little point spending the money/time on travel, I agree.

Where DH works, they are meant to be in 3 days a week. DH goes in twice a week and thinks most people only bother once a week! So a "mandate" might not be that strict.

In my office everyone is verbally ok with the return to work one day a week, but in practice almost no one actually attends. I've been in maybe three times this year.

The office is definitely almost empty, there's been no feedback from management on that (I doubt they are in much themselves, and many are based in other offices).

I wouldn't send emails or complain yet, why not see how it goes and have some reason each week why it won't happen, and see you next week?

I agree with you OP, before remote working was as widespread a commute was unavoidable for some of us. Now it's been the 'norm' for a lot of us for 2 years and we've seen the benefit to employees and employers, I really don't understand why people are being pushed to go to an office just to sit on teams calls with a different background.

I have a similar situation, a new mandate to work 2-4 days a week in an office where none of my team or even directorate are. They want me to go sit on my own in a building to sit on teams calls that I can do from home and not add an 80 mile round trip (for a job I took on the understanding it was remote!). I have voiced my thoughts and said I will attend in person meetings or events when it's relevant but won't be going in for the sake of it. It's been agreed so far, I've travelled for genuine meetings when needed all over the country but less frequent than the 2 days every week (although argued against travelling for 6 hours each way for a 2 hour meeting at one site because £600+ travel wasn't cost efficient for 2 hours and it could be done remotely).

For the 'you chose to work there' comments, things have changed!

• it's been proven we can work remotely
• lots of businesses have recruited from further afield to get better talent so teams can be very widespread which then means existing/pre covid employees aren't necessarily close to their teams

-we have a climate crisis, why add pointless commutes? Companies have green targets, reduce emissions by not forcing people to travel for no reason

• cost of living is crippling a lot of people, either match rising costs with better pay or accept higher fuel/travel costs may be a blocker
• companies can save a lot of money by reducing physical buildings where they aren't needed as well as promote better work/life balance for their staff

Same here, I worked perfectly well at home during Covid and was saving a ton on not spending 1.5hrs/day in traffic. No we have to do 3 days in the office. Utterly pointless. WFH is so much better, cheaper, better quality of life and better work/life balance. But those in charge have alterior motives and don't care about people or the environment

I voted yanbu only because I agree it doesn't make sense to change the scenery of your team's calls for that much money, however I really think the British public are doing themselves out of jobs with this attitude. I would be hopping on that train to prove to them that my presence is necessary, not someone 3000 miles away who can provide the same service for a lot less money.

Going in one day a week is perfectly reasonable and flexible.

presumably you have benefited from lots of saved money over the last two years where you weren’t paying train tickets?

@RagingWoke I think you've summed up my thoughts/responses perfectly here, thank you!

@PeopleRStrange and @riesenrad I think you're right, I'm not sure it'll be 'policed' as such, so may be able to get away with it. Especially as I'm more than happy to go in where it makes sense to, I.e., face to face workshops or big team meetings, etc.

Yanbu. This isn’t sense, it’s power. See if you can argue it.

But you're not someone in this position presumably, by the way your post is written?

I don't need to be in a different building to show my work is valuable, as proven by the last two years of feedback. You're arguing for presenteeism, which has always been bonkers, even pre-pandemic!

It's not sustainable for a business to be completely remote. How are young people going to learn how to do their jobs?

I agree, but also, a mandated 1 day/wk doesn't solve that problem. What if the young people prefer a Thursday in the office, as there's then inevitable after work drinks, but the more experienced people to help them prefer a different day?

Taking a totally flexible approach, and allowing teams to work out what's best for them at any given point in time, seems the most sensible option, rather than arbitrarily mandating 1 day/wk, which could be any day, and will likely be different for different people.

Sorry, that was in reply to @CloudPop

My office is completely remote- all 50 of us across two countries. We have recruited at least 15 young people during the pandemic and trained them remotely. It is not difficult when you have the right technology

I think YABU as it's not unreasonable for employers to expect their employees to be physically on site once a week.

However I also agree with some that in reality you'd probably get away with once or twice a month as long as you're very visible when you're there.

I would have loved to have had to chance to work remotely - no commuting costs or stress, seeing a little more of DH, teenage DC's and my home. Being able to get home jobs done at lunchtime. The small part of my job which could be done remotely was rearranged and done by those who were shielding or isolating (I got about a week WFH in two years). Think yourself lucky op and btw enjoy spending that £7000 you have not had to spend on commuting

Yes I agree. I do think a presence in the office would be greatly beneficial to younger people, but it does need to find its own shape

I completely understand it is technically possible to train new hires remotely. I just think that it is a very narrow and unenjoyable way to start out on your career.

Pre-pandemic I was travelling to an office once a week. Post pandemic I've said I'm happy to come in if there is genuine value, i.e. an in person meeting where all of the team are in the same building but I'm not travelling to sit at a random desk and dial in to calls.

@fiftiesmum You do know you don't know me, right? There's really no need to be bitter and resentful about someone you dont't know saving £7k through not having to travel. Which incidentally, has been largely spent on providing things to make my disabled brother's life easier, and help him with rent. Maybe think next time, before you express your jealousy so publicly.

Sone folk used this as excuse to stay wfh in my workplace. We are expected in 50% of the month. It was laid out that ‘you knew this was an office based role, you knew the location of the office, you paid the travel cost pre-pandemic and if it hadn’t happened you’d be still paying for 5 days a week.’

Ouch. I really don’t think this reply was necessary to this poster, it’s very harsh and pretty horrible.

The problem on my form is the slackers. We've got one grad who is refusing to come in because he got a puppy.

See this is what o cannot understand, my office had no issues to keep those working at home well at home . I have nil issues with it myself that most of my team is still working from home . Work is done , if anything is more productive .
why are they making people return without any need

I’m not sure if it the case OP but I bet you did not save £300 because you where while and probably ate more used more water , electricity and heating etc . I can however see why work from home is more appealing . I changed to work from home only pre pandemic ( like 3 months prior ) and it was the best thing I did

No I don't know you - but it was your post that said you were unhappy at going back to doing what you were contracted to do and how much it was costing
I was happy travelling work during the pandemic - I had the freedoms very few others had and certainly not jealous of those restricted to the house.