To be losing the will to live with staff who chosen a job with a long commute & then complain about it

[Benibidibici]

I work in a well paid industry - think 6 figure salaries.

We've made really clear through hiring processes that roles are hybrid, not remote, we as a team really get a lot from collaborative working so we expect 2 days a week in the central office. There's flex about which days but we ask that people try to mostly hit the core days of tues/weds/thurs. As a line manager I'm not watching the clock and we are happy to play around with what time people start & finish - eg. One guy leaves at 4.30 to collect his kids by 5.30 & this is fine.

We've hired 3 people this year and made all this clear and they're all grumbling about their commutes and regularly asking to come in less. We offer what we can in terms of flexibility but when we insist we need them in 2 days, they are basically sulking. Its clear one of them in particular never had any intention of coming to the office more than a day or so every 2-3 weeks and expected to get away with remote working.

Its really frustrating. We were honest about what we needed and people just seem to think they can insist.

Why do people do this? One lady has moved 2 hours from our city 3 years ago, and during that time consistently keeps applying for and taking jobs here rather than in the large city where she now lives. Her husband also works in our industry and between them they'll have an income of £200k plus, so they aren't forced to live in a cheaper area.

Its really shit for me to have to go through the unpleasant process of monitoring people's attendance & imposing formal consequences etc (I'm not that kind of manager at all) because they took a job they don't want to turn up for.

What can I do to stop people doing this?

If this is such a big problem, we may just need to pay more for weekend/evening services to make staffing them viable. People frequently react like you've just shat in their trainers if you suggest that, however.

Or the share between profits and wages needs adjusting. It's been going one way for an extended period.

That too!

In a market, the more desirable your skills, the greater your power to determine the conditions under which you exchange labour for reward...

That's the whole point - maybe you do, but maybe you don't because the company knows that it is better to have disobedient staff than sack them, spend a fortune hiring someone else and getting them used to internal systems, then they are just a disobedient as the one you sacked so you have to sack them too... meanwhile the work is not getting done.

Bosses do not have unlimited power, as evidenced by OP not simply sacking the people she sees as poss takers.

What is the point? Everyone has a right to ask anyway (free speech!) and if the reply can be a "no" with no justification the right to ask has zero value.

Total waste of time of a law

Regardless of whether anyone else thinks your job (that they know nothing about) can be done fully remotely, the job they applied for and signed a contract for states 2 days in the office. They're free to move on.

TrashedSofa · Today 09:30

Some of the roles people describe are simply not very attractive. We have a population that expects a lot of services to be provided outside the 'standard' working week, but not a corresponding number of workers who are willing and able to do it. There's a mismatch. Demand doesn't create supply.

@TrashedSofa very good point

OP is presumably at liberty to take action for breach of contract.

If employees had full control they would negotiate the "must be in office" from the contract. If they have partial control they can sign the contract, ignore it and bet that the company will make a commercial decision to ignore the brech of contract.

It is literelly an employees job in capitalism to get as much as she possible can from her employer whilst giving as little as possible, in order to benefit herself and her family.

Yes. Restricting labour supply in the economy has had consequences.

I disagree. These people clearly want a weekday job and they think that applying for a weekend job and then trying to get out of weekend work is their best option. They are exercising their rights in a free market. Some people in hotels and shops work monday to friday and if they can build up a month or two of experience at one company, push for weekdays, get let go, try again somewhere else, eventually they'll be more experienced and eventually they'll end up at a company that allows them to switch to monday to firday

Why should they move on if they're getting paid and doing what they want? It would be madness! It's down to the company to move them on for breach of contract.

Agree it doesn't seem like something that would have much practical effect. I wonder if it might be political signalling. Labour trying to position themselves away from the Tories, who've sought to make political capital from complaining about remote working.

@AnonnyMouseDave I take it you don't work in hospitality? I'm a housekeeping manager and I'm not going to employ someone who won't work weekends when the job advertised clearly states that weekend working is essential.

There's plenty of jobs out there so if people are not flexible they need to apply for jobs that fit their needs, it's not rocket science.

We make this clear too - 3 days in a week at the moment and this may increase but it's our employers call so we go with that. Recently a wider overarching section started saying people need to be in at least 2 days a week, and there was a flurry of emails and chat messages to me about reducing hours... no ... at LEAST 2 days a week - not 2 days a week!
We also make it SOOOO clear in the job advert and at interview
Very frustrating

I don't work in hospitality.

I understand that you want to place an advert and have great people show up to interview who are all 100% happy with the pay on offer and are completely flexible about the hours they do.

But that is only 50% of the labour market. The other half is potential employees who are looking for high pay, no effort required, experience, hours to suit them etc etc. Their literal job is to get s much out of you as possible whilst giving as little as possible, and they have every right to take a job and then try to get the terms changed.

Yeah, this is what it comes down to really. In discussions about workers and the labour market, people often say that others 'need to' do something. People need to go back to the office, not apply for jobs that involve weekend work if they don't want to do it etc. But they clearly don't need to. What this actually means is that the person speaking wishes they'd do it.

Which is totally understandable when you're the person lumbered with recruiting and making sure the place is properly staffed, but it means nothing to anyone else. We are presently in a labour market where employees know the pendulum has swung in their favour, so it often makes sense to try and push for what you want in a way that it didn't when the balance was more the other way.

Employers try and change T&Cs all the time. It's a permanent negotation.

Their literal job is to get s much out of you as possible whilst giving as little as possible, and they have every right to take a job and then try to get the terms changed.

No, their literal job is to comply with the terms of their contract and do the work detailed in the job description. It’s nobody’s literal job to be grasping and workshy.

Sorry we are both right.

You are right in that their literal job that pays them money "is to comply with the terms of their contract and do the work detailed in the job description."

I am right in that their literal job as an individual in a capitalist society with family to look after "to get as much out of you as possible whilst giving as little as possible".

When I said literal job that is what I meant, but I can see why you interpreted as you did given I used the words "literal job".

If they have been there less than two years, and refuse to come in for the contracted 3 days, you are within your rights to end their contracts.

Presumably OP knows full well that this is pointless because the replacement employee will likely be just the same.

Contracts are only as good as the power you have to enforce them, and presumably OP has no power as if she did she would have got staff in who do what they're told.

@Benibidibici it’s so frustrating, I get it, but I think it’s very hard for people to not feel hard done by if they feel they work better from home. Even if they agree to it initially, being on a packed train picking up colds or flu or Covid, or getting stuck in traffic with sky high petrol costs just feels unfair to a lot of people. I think a bit of working together to figure out what would make coming into the office worthwhile for them could be useful maybe? I could be something like improving the workplace culture, or having really good chairs and desks, it could be about other little perks. I think working from home tends to be just more enjoyable for a lot of people, and potentially cheaper but if you make office working more attractive- that could help increase the attendance in work. One thing to bear in mind is that if on the days they do come in they get the vibe that they are resented for working from home too much - it probably doesn’t inspire them to come in. It probably just makes them want to avoid them more

In all the jobs I've ever done in my almost 50 years I have only ever applied for something I'm both willing and able to do.

I then do just that, work my arse off because that's just me (at the same time showing up people such as you describe as work shy ) and then find when I want to negotiate better pay or conditions I'm in an excellent position to do so.

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone with this work ethic?