To ask what your employers are doing regarding wfh?

[Starwarslover]

I’ve recently started a new job which officially has no set days required in the office, although I keep hearing things that imply they want people in more. It doesn’t bother me as I’m in 60% anyway but it made me wonder if most employers are like this now, not wanting to put in minimum days but actively pushing for more than people are choosing to do.

YABU - employers are being honest and open and putting in set days

YANBU - they are saying they officially don’t mind when really they do

We are completely hybrid, in that the office is open for us to go in and hot-desk, although if the nature of the role means you never need to go in apart from meetings, that's fine. In reality, I go in 2 days a week which is a great balance for me.

I am the employer so not quite the same! I only have a small team, everyone is local as I've had the same staff since before covid when people could wfh when needed but generally came into the office and no has moved.

I tend to go in 5 days a week for my own sanity, staff are free to wfh when they like I just ask they let me know by popping in in their calendars so that from a welfare point of view I know they won't be in the office- also offer flexi so isn't as simple as they'll be online at usual start time so need to ask for them to say.

Most come in 3 plus days a week, but we do have nice offices, ample parking (although most walk), free hot drinks, heating and it's a hub with different companies in other parts of the building so it's quite nice and social. We do have someone junior starting soon and people have said they're happy to be in when needed to help train them, but there was no pressure.

I think having the freedom to choose works well for us and for them, a nice office is there should they want to come in (and invariably they do) or they can wfh without any pressure or judgement. When we next recruit as we are looking to expand I'd probably choose someone local tbh even if they intend to wfh most of the time.

My job is remote anyway, aside from 3 full company meetings and the occasional event I need to attend. I was employed on a remote basis post-pandemic. For those who that isn't the case for, I think it's been left to individuals and their managers to work out the pattern that best suits, whilst meeting the needs of the business. Generally people seem to do at least 2 days in the office, though there are some that prefer to be in every day.

DH's company makes a lot of noise about people coming in more, but doesn't actually require it or say directly 'you need to be in X number of days'. He tends to do one day a week in the office now, it used to be more and he was quite keen to get back in - but think he's given up since nobody else does.

None of this refutes the point that they're not synonymous. Sure, some people exist whose only or main human contact is with colleagues, but nobody said they didn't. This is why people need to be more careful about their terminology.

And its actually quite reasonable to wonder what the impact of many people never or seldom meeting work colleagues face to face is going to be, as that's a big change. Its a reasonable enough question that people asking it don't have to hide behind pretending it's only about the small minority of people who don't see anyone outside work.

Ours is flexible. I have to do one day in office but cannot do more than 3.

I am perm wfh due to disability but my employer says 2 days, whichever ones you choose. In reality, most people don't go in at all. Our role isn't customer facing so it is only a few senior members who insist on office days as they want company 🙄

However more pressure is put on junior staff to go in, which isn't fair and we've just lost a team member due to this.

Im between 40-80% each week depending on if I'm needed. It's very flexible though, i get on for 10 and leave before 4. WFH outside of those hours

Hybrid, 20% in the office but it's pretty flexible. There is a push for people to arrange to do meetings face to face now if you can.

I wouldn't take a job that was mainly in the office now, it's not necessary for my type of work and not commuting makes a huge difference to my life.

I’m currently on a 6 month contract and we’re expected in about 2-3 times a month but no specified days.

Previous contract we were expected in the office 2 days a week.

Now when I’m looking for a permanent job a lot of companies seem to expect you in 5 days a week. I’m older and have been there and done commuting, I get more done at home etc.

I really don’t get why companies do want you in 5 days a week or more as it’s almost as though you don’t trust you to work effectively at home.

There were a few incentives in old contract to get people to come in, eg nice coffee machine, cafes, free fruit, office snack treats bought regularly, office social etc events during/after work.

We have complete flexibility, although some roles are lab-based so can't be done from home. I tend to be in the office 4 days per week as I prefer it to WFH.

Ours is 1+ days in the office.

I am mostly WFH but the big bosses do make some noise about wanting people to come in 2 days a week. I would happily do that if the office wasn’t so inconvenient, it’s in the middle of a city but with very little parking nearby, the train station and bus station are 20+ minutes walk away and I have 2 young DC to drop off and pick up (although DH does cover this as well as me). My job can be fully done from home. So far we’ve had no pressure to come in, just gentle encouragement but if it were to be mandated I would look for another job I think. If they would find a more suitable office then I’d happily come in every day!

No requirement but there are parts of the job that need to be done in the office and everyone is expected to do their fair share of those.

This is all tough for the next generation of worker. Many new employees in their early twenties are missing out on the experience of face to face team-working. The negotiations, chat, role-modelling socialising after work etc. Many are starting careers either working on a laptop in their bedroom in a shared house, or going to a deserted office. I don’t think it’s great really.

Fine for all these mums who now love doing the school run and laundry around their working day. For the next generation of young workers, not so much. (Obviously individual exceptions will apply).

This gets said a lot on here, and it leaves out all the young workers for whom office/workplace based jobs actually function to exclude them.

For young people who are neurodiverse, disabled, carers, managing chronic conditions, geographically isolated, actually more remote working opens up the opportunities and experiences that are available to them. They're no more or less important than the young people who did derive benefit from socialising after work and chit chat rather than being fucked over by their importance.

Hmmm would be interesting to know if anyone has challenged on that last point- can't see how treating a group of employees less favourably than the rest just because you are pissed off with them would be legal!

In my experience the younger people seem to be in the office a lot (we're hybrid), and have made good friends and networks by being in the office. It's preferable for them to come in rather than work at their parents' homes or in shared houses. The directors and heads of department are all in a lot too, as they can afford to live near the office in central London.

The middle-aged middle management (like me) who moved out of London to have babies are the ones who are remaining WFH, and are probably missing out on networking because of it.

What's annoying me is that it's often the whim of whoever is in charge. DH is 100% remote but one boss later and they want new hires to be in 2 days a week.

We are only allowed to WFH 1 or 2 days a week, which I'm happy with.

We don't mind, really.

We have some people who do 1 day every fortnight in the office and others who are in every day, with the bulk of people doing 2-3 days in the office a week.

We trust people to make the decisions that work for them - some roles don't really need office time at all, some work best with a bit more because they're more collaborative, and people have naturally graduated toward what works for their role without us pushing it.

Our only stipulation is that people come in when it's required - i.e. we have a client visit - or, if that never happens for a particular role, 'occasionally' so we can do 1-1s in person. We don't specify an actual amount of days.

Worth pointing out too that if you're hybrid, whole cohorts of young people (and indeed all age groups) won't be able to work for you in the first place. It's a self-selecting group. You won't see the ones who are disadvantaged by networking in the office because they haven't joined you in the first place.

Me and my team are full time WFH although there are offices and some of the team do go there now and then when they want to.

That's very true, we hired on remote contracts during Covid and got a much wider range of applicants than we usually get. I would have much preferred that to remain, but the powers that be decided we need to use the expensive office space.

It's interesting regarding younger people/people new to the workplace and new to their sector. I attend a lot of conferences and mentor students and its been fascinating to see the shift in desirable companies. Whereas previously in my sector it was really clear who the top companies were and the highly coveted grad schemes and apprentiships. They weren't even the best paid or whatever but for various reasons it was very clear. Now it's less so, some 'underdogs' have really upped their desirability for young grads and its those who invariably have an office presence at least for a chunk of time.

Whilst people keep saying businesses who don't adapt to remote working will be left behind, I've also seen the opposite true in some cases; highly capable assets being turned off from remote working and giving other organisations a try. I think there's a trade off probably somewhere in the middle, but it's absolutely not a plus for everyone especially specific groups who arguably are huge assets to places.