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?!

Presenteeism is a sign of a poorly managed business.

Agreed with you op. It's just wanting an ass in a chair. If my work asks me to go back, I'll just start looking for a new job. There's plenty of them, and some pay better. I'm currently ok on living cost rises because I don't have to commute, if I did that would change and I'm not loyal to a company that changes things simply to have an ass in a seat. My colleagues don't even work in the same building as me, so I still couldn't talk to them. It would just be a different location, so nope not doing it. I'll just walk. I've made that very clear to them too, they won't be able to keep me and finding someone to do my job is actually difficult, to do it well at least and the level of knowledge I have, and I won't stick around to train anyone.

Or the mark of a business emerging from lockdown and trying to figure out how best to run themselves.

Our office has asked us to go in once a week, some go more often- I tend to go in two days - some go less.

Ultimately my employer pays my wage and my contract doesn't say permanent WFH, so regardless of my personal feelings I'll go in as often as I am told to.

My work sent me remote when I refused to have the vaccine. Then I sought other work, from home. A lot of companies have operated somewhat remotely before covid, especially tech firms, who pay well for what I do. This whole thing really benefited my working life.

@rookiemere A business that simply dictates how often people should be in the office and employees feel obliged to simply do exactly what is asked for them, is not well managed.
Presenteeism has been around in some firms for decades.
I always opt for forward-looking companies. My first very forward-looking company was before we had computers in the office and even then my boss had no time for people sitting in the office wasting time until they were allowed to go home. If there was nothing much to do, we went home. And when it was busy we stayed later.
And companies that do not allow pushback from employees always have outdated inefficient working practices. The culture ends up being, just do what we are asked even if it makes no bloody sense and wastes everyone's time.

I know in my industry those that are the most forward-looking are allowing wfh or office base depending on the needs of the individual i.e. their style of working and home situation. Wfh does not suit everyone. So where I work the intern is in the office with some other staff who want to work in the office. Others are at home virtually full-time.

What gets lost in this debate are the arguments that employers use to insist people work in the office.

Just wanting someone there is not enough. For what? Some hideous notion like team bonding or 'brainstorming sessions'?

In the meantime the employee loses money, works more poorly, spends hours per day being unproductive, contributes to climate change through travelling and has to listen to Bev in accounts bang on about what she had for tea last night.

And everyone on Mumsnet just says tough, suck it up, because employer is Big and Important.

I'm not sure where you got that from. I voted yanbu because I get that it is difficult and annoying. I still think we are all shooting ourselves in the foot with this idea that we can just work from anywhere. The idea that profit driven companies will keep expensive UK based employees when they can get cheaper labour elsewhere, is bonkers. So yea, I do sympathise with you but I think we will be out of jobs soon if this continues.

But you don't know it's pointless. The manager of the business who has more awareness of what's going on across the different sites and offices and depts says that they need staff back in. There could be all sorts of reasons that the op is not aware of.

@LetitiaLeghorn A good manager communicates those reasons. There have been none communicated. So not a good manager.

@Meadowbreeze that has been tried. It brings its own major issues. Our call centre used to be abroad and is now back in the UK.

You are being unreasonable. You were happy to work there and the commute. I do what I'm told at work. I get on with it.

If you don't like it get another job with no travelling and save yourself the money.

He might be a bad manager. It doesn't mean there's not a genuine reason.

Exactly @LetitiaLeghorn plus this assumption that businesses always know the impact of everything before they do it is wrong.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask colleagues who mostly were office based pre pandemic to come in once per week. The business can then monitor and see how that works out - if there is genuinely no need for folk to come in, then I'm sure in time they will take the opportunity to get rid of expensive office space.

The issue is primarily caused by OP living so far from her place of work. There are a number of options here;

1. Find a different fully home based role
2. Argue her special case with the manager to justify full home working or exceptional office visits only
3. Negotiate a pay rise to cover the costs
4. Nod and smile at the once a week

Diktat and come in rarely

1. Go in once a week

But no I don't think the business is necessarily wrong to ask all employees to come in once a week.

This ^^ be grateful it’s only once, and only now or find another job, either fully remote or nearly home.

Assuming you are being paid at least the same as pre-pandemic yabu not to be willing to travel a day or two a week. Are any of the hubs nearer so that you could negotiate a shorter commute instead but still be present?

I can't believe you are quibbling over 1 day a week. Most people who do want hybrid don't get that good a deal. I see this as major employee entitlement. Maybe a total wfh job would suit you best?

I don't think one day a week is unreasonable. You accepted it before and I assume your contract hasn't changed.

I can't believe those saying it is reasonable for the company not to know whether they need people in the office so to trial it. Surely they monitor employees' outputs and so can clearly compare with pre-pandemic and now? Or do these firms have no monitoring systems and just try things out on a whim?
The company I work for can clearly see what is achieved at different times by different employees. This is pretty basic management.

I do work for a forward-thinking company. Maybe lots of companies do things on a whim and I am just naive about the poor management in other places though?

OK, so I get that the majority feel I'm unreasonable to feel resentful about 1 day/wk, that's fine, I'll take that, although would be interesting to see how many of you are also in the same position.

What's coming across is that those who definitely are in the same position, and have stated as much, get it and understand completely. Those who have completely different job types, or have perhaps been 'forced' back, have come across as quite resentful of those in different position, and aren't really seeking to understand the rationale to want to remain wfh and visit the office on an ad-hoc basis. I'm not saying I don't ever want to go back, I'm saying, what's the point, when there's no real reason to be there?

Saying that "I did it before so you should do it now", well yes, of course I did, as did the rest of the world. But there's been a step change in the way many of us work, due to the pandemic, and if we don't learn from that, and simply go back to doing things 'because we always used to', then no-one will progress.

Anyway, this isn't a deal-breaker, I don't need to get a new job, I was just curious about what people thought generally. My entire team don't see the point in a mandated 1 day/wk, some live close by, some don't, some are single, some have families, but no-one, managers, and heads of department included, see the point of a mandate.

To be honest you’ve been lucky to work at home full time until now. We have been back a long time. I guess your choice is to suck up 1 days travel costs, look for a job closer to home or look for a house closer to work.

Let's face it. If there wasn't a mandate, no-one would go back.

This is a start as far as management is concerned. It's to get bums on seats, remind people what the office is about, and gets people actually communicating face to face.

I'm retired, but I have two friends who now have to go in two days a week, after WFH for two years. One has struggled with WFH (youngish, living alone in a tiny flat, with no separation of work and relaxing space, and no company), the other loving WFH and no commute.

Both have ended up valuing being back, having the general work vibe as a stimulus, and being able to have casual conversations/ overhear conversations and be able to get other opinions and ideas informally again. The younger one is valuing the older ones' experience once more as he gets to learn from them by osmosis in a way that he couldn't from behind a screen.

The older one of course has a nice big house with a study to use as an office, and his family to keep him company, so he really had no reason to want to come back. But even he had said that it's good to be around a mix of people and feel properly part of the company.

But even the younger one who was desperate to be back, has been reminded that commuting is horrible!

I can understand your resentment to be honest - it would be different if your whole team or significant proportion were also going in or your role wasn't done on teams

My employer has each team in now on 2 set days per week but has said if we have teams meetings booked in they don't want us to come in the office and then sit there with headphones talking away or making others feels they have to be quiet when it's something that can be done much more easily at home

@Subaru4336 I think a mandate is stupid. But MN is very - if the boss says jump I say how high.

In terms of your personal circumstances, I get that you've benefited by the dune of circa 8k so far from the no commute.

I also get that it irks given you can and have been wfh.

But you are clearly contracted to be office based. Wfh was never your default contract. If this is what you want, then you need to look elsewhere as your employer wishes for the contractual obligations to be met. You are inevitably paid more due to the travel expectations. Roles of the same that are wfh are, on the whole, lower paid so could you manage if say the workplace said OK, but reduce by say £500/month to equivalent roles that are wfh? No weightings etc.

I don't say that flippantly. I have a wfh contract that predates covid. I wanted this so purposely found a role that met these wishes. But I don't think that an employer should be obliged to have stripping employees not retuning, regardless of the output levels. Sometimes there are more important success measures than this alone.

And I suppose the question is why should be asked, why should you be treated any differently to the other employees who may also have liked the 8k they have saved? And given you have saved 8k,surely you now have a great buffer for the current cost of living rises.