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?

I think a bit of working together to figure out what would make coming into the office worthwhile for them could be useful maybe?

//

Their paycheck surely?!!!

I'm looking for a new job in the new year, for the first time in years, and this thread is making me feel like by just intending to do the job I apply for in the way it's advertised is going to give me an edge

Their paycheck surely?!!!

Evidently not in the case of OPs organisation!

I think this is an argument about efficiency from two standpoints, rather than work ethic? But perhaps your point is more about compliance/docility?

My firm are finding that 100% remote roles disproportionately negatively impact junior positions due to the loss of spontaneous on the job learning / networking opportunities which cannot be replicated in a WFH context

@Q2C4 i’m guessing you’re a lawyer? Im
in house and seeing working from home being massively detrimental to junior lawyers ability to learn. Their skill feel very one dimensional compared to those of colleagues who trained in the office five days a week.

I think they sense it and a number are actively seeking out more in person experience but it’s very difficult when their own line managers only want to be in one day a week.

Creating a new rule so there is less flexibility for everyone isn't fair on the ones who are coming to the office as required now.
Deal with the ones that following the rules rather than punishing everyone.

Yes, exactly @TrashedSofa, in my experience work and life is about dealing with what you have not what you think you aught to have.

Employees are just human, they want to feel good about their work, they want to do a good job, they want you, as an employer or manager to see them that way as well. They also have the basic human needs of feeling autonomous, and probably don’t like the feeling of being controlled, and they probably want to feel purposeful and inspired. Arguably, as a manager of people being good at helping them achieve this while balancing the needs of the company is part of the job. If guilting them about it isn’t working, then, arguably it’s your job to find out what does work. Or to figure out if this issue is worth the hassle in the long term. That’s what my suggestions are based on, what might work

My firm are finding that 100% remote roles disproportionately negatively impact junior positions due to the loss of spontaneous on the job learning / networking opportunities which cannot be replicated in a WFH context
That doesn't surprise me. On reflection most of my work-based learning hasn't come from sitting in a Teams call. It's come from talking to colleagues, watching and seeing how they handle situations, being able to pick their brains on a topic etc.

I wonder if we're going to get to the point where the people who spend most of their working life trying to avoid interacting with colleagues or learning soft skills end up being the first to moan that they're not considered for opportunities, and they won't see the link.

You need to specify two set days a week from the outset. Eg, the whole team comes in on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so they know exactly what the deal is.

WFH is still a novelty for many; I do it but also love the days in the office. If my boss suddenly wanted me in five days a week then that's what I'd do since, you know, they're my BOSS!

As for young people 'rejecting jobs that are office based' that might be true now but I suspect they'll soon change their stance when they realise their career isn't progressing the way they want it to.

I personally think you need to embrace remote working. I'm also in a 6 figure industry, I have 10 years experience in my industry and I'm looking for a new role as a very desirable candidate and I'm not even looking at roles that can't be flexible around remote working. I go into the office twice a week at the moment and I literally don't see a single other soul. I just sit at a different desk.

It's an hour both ways. My city keeps going on about being environmentally friendly but we're expected to drive in twice a week to work to just sit at a different desk to the one at home. It costs me nearly £10 a day to park. I lose two hours of my working day commuting because my daughter goes to childcare at the same times all week so I usually work 8-6 on wfh days and 9-5 on work in office days. My computer at home is much better than my work one and jobs take have the time at home because processing time is so much quicker.

Maybe they're not complaining because they're lazy. Maybe it's because it's better for staff, business and environment? I find it personally very deflating to be told to come in to the office to just sit at a different desk doing all my meetings as teams meetings anyway (we work internationally), lose two hours of working time and have to pay for the privilege to boot.

In most jobs I have had I have worked hard because I have needed the money and wanted to learn and progress.

Clearly these people on massive salaries don't have that same desire, and are simply trying to earn very good money whilst maximizing their own happiness and well-being. Earlier int heir careers when their skillset was lower they were probably more willing to be obedient little worker bees.

Drive to do a good job, enjoy what I do and be the best the best professional I can = Compliance and docility?

If you so I suppose

Surely there is a balance to be had, subject to the caveat that everyone is different?

Most people work fairly hard and have a bit of ambition... they give more than they need to because they want a pay rise, promotion, more training opportunities etc - and tey get a ssense of satisfaction from doing a good job

On the other hand, I think it is naive pretty much to the point of stupidity not to understand that 99.999% of companies don't care about you, and that your responsibility - ultimately - is to your own happiness and financial well-being, and that of your family, and not your employer at all.

And it is naive to not get that some people just want to do the job and get paid and from their point of view the worst case is they get sacked and go get a new job.

That's a fair point and at the same time it's also reasonable to expect peope to do the job they applied for in the conditions you have signed for. Yea we can try to negotiate too but it's not right to have the entitlement that anything above and beyond is owed to you. I guess No is a complete sentence that works both ways!

Whilst I have said on previous posts that if the job isn't wfh then it isn't-so don't take the job - I do agree either with those of you that are going in just to be by yourself or 2 others in a company of maybe 14 people. That's rather pointless too- it would be better if that's what is happening to do a hybrid with 'fixed days in' and it be expected and contractual - like Tuesday/wed/thurs etc .

I once had a job when my son was young (way back in late 90s) where it involved looking after contractors who were all on site and I was frequently the only one in - in a biggish office in the City- I do remember finding it odd and weird and thinking- I could do this from home with nursery 10 minutes away rather than a 40 minute commute

I think it’s worth thinking about the fact that there are better and worse ways of using technology to bridge gaps in training and general development. I have frequently been on a call to healthcare people, eg my gp, and have been informed that they had a trainee listening it and was that okay. This is quite achievable with teams and zoom, but it takes proactive planning, getting people on board with it. It takes leadership. Remember there are teaching and presenting opportunities which are far better offered romotely as well because you can share, search, show information in realtime so easily. You do have to be a very strong leader to really make these things work, so it can be easier to just fire employees and just hire people who want to be there in person. Worth remembering though that employees who favour in person working may have their own specific strengths and weaknesses as a group as well so you won’t necessarily get the workforce you had before remote working became a norm

What sort of six figure industry doesn't provide a laptop and has desktops that are worse than staff's own computers?

With people saying it's an employees market- that isn't strictly true- in many better paid jobs in interesting industries, there are still plenty of good candidates whether the roles are office based or not. The shortages tend to be more in service type roles, not that great pay and often involving shifts or unpleasant aspects to the job. This is partly down to loss of EU workers and plenty of people who could in theory fill them being quite satisfied with 'getting by' on benefits because they would in reality get little more (especially if renting) but be giving up all their time, or it's older people inheriting decent sums or drawing down on pensions and not being prepared to be bossed about by some youngcwhippersnapper who fancies themself as something off the Apprentice. It's not a criticism by the way of these people, in those positions I might think the same too.

It's an employees market overall.

You're right that there are still employers who for whatever reason are attractive enough not to be affected, so the impact isn't felt everywhere. But it's a generalisation to say the shortages tend to be in service type roles. Rather, they're some of the worst affected. But there are absolutely shortages in sectors that aren't like that too.

It's an employees market overall.

For now. The economy has a habit of changing and the labour market is one of the first to be affected when it does. The economy isn’t looking very healthy right now.

Yes, obviously for now. Hence the present tense.

Everything is in flux at the moment. We've not had a labour shortage for decades, we've never had a population pyramid like the one we're staring down the barrel of, we've just been through a pandemic that caused significant social change, we've allowed the link between work and living standards to fray and oh yeah, there's AI too. It'd take a braver woman than me to make predictions about the longer term, and frankly a number of those made on this thread have had more than a whiff of copium about them.

YANBU @Benibidibici and I suspect that a number of PPs who tell you that you are have very humdrum admin jobs which could be done anywhere. Rather than what sounds like your quite creative dynamic workplace

There are many professions where real collaboration around a table is essential. And there are a whole slew of jobs such as teaching or medical care where in person is essential for health and life!

I’d be really interested to see a Venn diagram of PPs who say that in person work is old-fashioned, bad etc and posters who moan all the time at how terrible lockdown was for their DC. You can’t have it both ways.

Are there any posters who think in person work is bad, per se? As opposed to bad for some people and something that can make recruitment more difficult?

Also, the lockdown point is entirely without merit. People who work remotely aren't being made to avoid in person socialisation with anyone they don't live with, whereas that was pretty much the aim of lockdown. Some of you sound like you think people can only have social contact with those who happen to work for the same employer in the same area.

It's an employees market overall.

'Overall' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence, though. Whole professions such as medical (and allied professions), education, sport, anything science-based which requires time in a lab, and most creative industries will require at least some time where an employee's actual presence is required. And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

So I agree with the general point you are making @TrashedSofa , but think there are multiple exceptions to it - far more than some PPs realise.

Wish it were an employees' market in my industry. It's competitive and creative. I'm bloody lucky to have my job, hope I don't lose it somehow.

I wonder if they've heard 'two days a week, but we can be flexible' and instead of taking that as flexibility with start and end times have taken that as flexibility surrounding the number of days.