Meeting: 'Working from home' - your vote needed!

[coxesorangepippin]

Got a meeting invite late tonight titled simply: Working from home'. Scheduled for half an hour. No additional info.

What are they gonna say?

Return to the office full time? Full time WFH???

Your guess is as good as mine. We're currently in once every two weeks.

Results posted in here tomorrow once the meeting has been held.

Yanbu = back to office
Yabu = WFH

My job is completely remote. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be able to do my job as the skeleton office is based in England and I live in Wales. WFH has allowed companies to widen their net to find talent. It's also a great way to combat regional deprivation.

@TrashedSofa well said
I dont get all this collaborative working in person sometimes, we have worked so well on projects through teams with so many people in different sites, there are people in the US i have never met but yet speak every single day on teh phone or on teams and feel like i know them so well. Before covid i sat right in front of my boss, but i never saw him really he was always gone to meetings etc ( 3 buildings on site). I would often have to sit and wait for him many an eve to get stuff signed or catch up. When work from home i spoke to him more in that 1st year then i did in the three years before sitting right across from him. We can send a quick message on teams or a call, stuff to be signed can be sent via docu sign (Wonderful invention)A colleague has just handed in his notice, i have actually never met him face to face but we have spoken nearly every day and am devastated he is going as he was a big help to me

We have to go in to the office twice per week

Sounds pretty standard to mee, and I'm a big advocate of WFH when it works properly

Staff "not being happy" at not getting everything they want is also pretty standard, but most importantly of all, what reason did the managers give for making the change?

I guess at least it's only 2 days. My place forces us in 3 days a week. We can't all do the same 3 days so often I'm sat there on my own all day.

The employer's prerogative doesn't outweigh the views of the team.

Of course it does. That's literally how employment works 😂. I work in a highly consultative open environment. Individual / team views are always considered. The ultimate decision is with the employer, and of course it must be.

Regarding culture / environment / package, you're right. If individuals don't like it, as in any employment situation, they are free to leave.

It's not ridiculous to think that the changes since covid mean no or barely any time on site.
I'm not sure you're reading my post correctly. At a management level, there are many subtle & top-level issues (as I described) which might not always be seen at the individual level but matter to the organisation.

Of course a good employer will articulate these clearly and honestly.

Regarding 2 days on site not being an imposition. It's simply not. Yes, if an employee doesn't like it, they can look for work elsewhere - that's fine. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with an employer having an expectation of a number of days on-site that suit them

Actually this is a good point- OP hasn't said whether they're all expected in on the same days. People are talking about the value of in person collaboration, but we've no evidence that's what it's about.

I am in the states and when CEO Marissa Meyer brought the WFH Yahoo people back to the office in 2013, my employer did the same. They determined the WFH experiment a failure because while employees started out working well, they slowly deteriorated and stopped working at all. It was gradual over time. The RTO announcement was clear. Return on this day or you are fired. And that's what happened. Several colleagues were fired because they did not think the threat was serious.

This post-Covid RTO is interesting to me. There are mandates to go back to the office "x" number of days and employees are not complying. But this time they are not getting fired. It's just a shoulder shrug. It doesn't seem like the companies are really serious. They want it to seem like they have employees back in the office (maybe to investors, clients, stockholders?), but they really aren't. It's still very much WFH, but from what I can tell, a majority of WFH people have stopped doing very much work at all. But there is not a pipeline of candidates to replace a lot of people should they quit or get fired.

That's a manifestly disorganised office / workplace though.

I don't blame you for wanting to wfh in that situation.

Every decent employer should ensure for example there are private spaces for Teams calls (I have my own office but in the open plan area they are not allowed. We have designated pods & meeting rooms, ample for requirements).

The office should of course be appropriately maintained eg equipment and furniture.

This is true too. I have 1 primary & 2 secondary aged DC. Over the summer I was often WFH when they were here too.

It was really hard. I had to work early / late / some weekends to get my work done.

Then again, being in the office was also a challenge as I was endlessly trying to track down teen DS!

I greatly appreciate the days I can WFH; as a single parent, it really helps in a myriad of small ways. However, I also recognise I at times won't have the same focus as in the office. I view this on a task basis, not time - I put in a bit of extra time when / if I need it.

I've been wfh the past 2 days and barely spoken to another human. Just sat in front of a screen. Don't get why people like it.

Many firms now want staff back in the office. They don't see WFH as a positive any more.

It's great that works for your office environment. I recognise workplaces are different.

However, if the employer feels there's benefits to the organisation of having employees on site more, that's absolutely reasonable.

As in your case, there'll be organisations where it isn't an issue & remote working is beneficial.

Neither the employees nor the employer have the ultimate decision, because there isn't just one. The employer gets to decide what terms and conditions they'll offer to employees, the employees get to decide whether to stay or not, and then for new recruits whether to apply/accept a role. There are two separate sets of decisions here and neither one can override the other.

What you've said about not reading your post correctly and the further explanation doesn't back up your claim that it's ridiculous to think changes since covid mean no or minimal time on site. What you have said here is that management might sometimes identify issues you describe, which is true, but certainly isn't a universal standard. The fact is that in some organisations where people work totally or mainly from home, management (like OPs manager) often don't think those issues exist.

As for two days simply not being an imposition, this is nothing more than your value judgement. You can't prove that it isn't, any more than anyone else could prove that it is. It's a personal call. It's also not a good way to approach the issue.

Seeing things as right or wrong is missing the point: it's about whether employer and employees are able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement on working conditions.

@EarringsandLipstick worked for i say about 10 very large global manufacturing companies in past 10 years not one of them have pods, ample meeting rooms for requirements. There was never enough meeting rooms anywhere i worked and you were always being asked did you need it by someone else looking to use it. One company had a makeshift mezzanine floor made above the warehouse to use as a meeting My last company, my office was actually part of the corridor, Management spent a fortune doing up two floors upstairs above us, one was to be sued for poster display's ect, my direct manager couldn't believe it we crammed into a corridor and yet the space above us ( with lovely views might i add) were to be dedicated to posters. Companies do not want to spend money on things like that. Current place has now got rid of phones from all desks, have to use teams or webex to ring people if don't have a work mobile. The peace and quiet i have at home to take calls and do my work at home is amazing.

I think it's very individual as well as organisation-dependent.

I generally dislike WFH more than 1 day at a time. My team much prefers to WFH x 2 days, on-site x 3 days, in a block.

For me, on-site days are focused on particular tasks, and often the 'softer' side of management - one-to-ones, checking in with someone who might be upset, relationship building. I then like my WFH days which are task oriented or focused online meetings.

I think the great benefit of hybrid working is facilitating as many of individual's preferences as possible, within reason.

My employer recently made everyone return back 50% of their working week. I must admit at first I was quite annoyed about it but now I think it's 100% the right decision.

I have a much better working relationship with my team, I don't get sick of the sight of my own four walls and I feel more involved in the goings on of the business.

That said, my "commute" is a 17 minute walk so I might feel differently if it were expensive and long. But I do think there is a good case for a hybrid approach.

The employer gets to decide what terms and conditions they'll offer to employees, the employees get to decide whether to stay or not, and then for new recruits whether to apply/accept a role. There are two separate sets of decisions here and neither one can override the other.

That's factually untrue though.

The employer gets to decide what the T&C of employment are. At that point in time, in the vast majority of cases, the employee has to accept it.

It at least temporarily does override the employee's wishes!

In time, if the employee really doesn't want to work in that way, they can look for another job, hand in their notice & leave. This isn't possible for everyone - so it's not an absolute choice. It also isn't immediate & not always straightforward.

There's just not an equivalence.

As for two days simply not being an imposition, this is nothing more than your value judgement. You can't prove that it isn't, any more than anyone else could prove that it is. It's a personal call. It's also not a good way to approach the issue.

Out of a 5 day working week, 2 days on-site isn't an imposition. How could it be?

Imagine thinking an employee asking their staff to work on-site 2/5 of the time equals an imposition 🤦🏻‍♀️

it's about whether employer and employees are able to come to a mutually acceptable agreement on working conditions.

With respect, this is wrong.

It's correct to consult, discuss & be open to points made by employees.

No workplace is based on reaching a 'mutually acceptable agreement'. That's nonsense. How would you have a 'mutually acceptable' situation that suited all employees?

It's for this reason there are rules of employment. It's correct to have latitude where possible (eg we have flexi time) but it's not parity.

That's terrible. You've been really unfortunate.

My organisation is public sector. The outlay to facilitate privacy for meetings is minimal. It's about organisation & effective management. The cost is fractional.

You've just worked for poorly organised companies.

This happened to us but 4 days a week in the office. Rather than just complain we made a business case for 3 max. The presentation included what our clients were doing, reasons why it was better to be more flexible including health, environment etc and quotes from recruitment agents on what top candidates were looking for. It was so well received they used it for the whole global policy. Its fine to say you are not happy and no but I always find its better to give business reasons why.

Agree with this.

We worked 2 days on-site, 3 days from home for quite a long while, then it reversed.

I found the initial 'extra' day on-site quite hard, tiring & I felt initially, unnecessary. Now it feels like the right balance.

Like I sat, the type of work I do means f2f connection is very valuable. But it's also the small things, like a quick chat before an in-person meeting to advance something. That can't happen on Teams; it's an ad hoc point of connection.

I often wonder about the argument about working from home as there is no need to go into an office. To me this is like giving the company you work for an excuse to say “well if this job can be done from anywhere why are we paying high salaries we will now only hire people from cheaper places”

@Coffeesnob11

That is a good idea, regarding the business case.

From a management perspective, we be also always focused on business need, when explaining rationale for decisions.