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?

My next sentence did basically say the same thing as you're saying here though! Us having insufficient workers on a societal level is bound to have very wide ranging effects, but it obviously isn't going to apply to all jobs. Rather, the effects will be more circuitous.

So to take your example of sport, yes of course you're right that professional clubs have no shortage of prospective applicants to play despite the fact that it requires work to be done in person at set times. You're not getting the timing of the FA cup final changed because you don't like weekend working! They might well feel the impact when it comes to recruiting people for hospitality and security (I do actually have a relative working in the latter for a club I won't name so I've heard a bit about the situation there). The research roles in labs may still be easily filled, less so the cleaners.

Also, the fact that a role has to be done in person doesn't mean it isn't an employees market. Dentistry is a good example of this. Has to be face to face, but dentists are clearly voting with their feet when it comes to terms, conditions and wages. It just looks different to the type of leverage that can be extracted by people with shortage skills in laptop based jobs.

But in this case the employee has more power as evidenced by his refusal to do as he's told and OP's tolerating this. So no, in this case he did the right thing - he got the pay he wanted and the terms and condition (WFH) he wanted, and it's now down to OP to see if she has the guts to sack him or whether she knows she can't because she knows that it is impossible to find someone as good for the same money who will come in.

she knows she can't because she knows that it is impossible to find someone as good for the same money who will come in.

It’s never impossible to replace someone. Nobody’s indispensable. If this employee had a catastrophic accident she’d have to find someone else and she’d only offer the job to someone who isn’t addicted to working from home or actively doesn’t want to.

Well, one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

If I were to guess it is you that is wrong. My reasoning is that if OP were confident in her ability in finding as good a worker for the same money who comes in when required to then she would sack the WFH guy (who ignores his contract) and employ a new person. But she is not confident of this, hence she is on mumsnet wondering what to do. Obviously she can find someone if her budget is unlimited (hell - I bet if she offered the WFH double pay he'd come in every day) but it isn't.

In the alternative OP and or her company are idiots who forgot to put the "come into the office" thing in the contract, or they are idiots who don;t know how to manager a contract breaker out of the door, or they're cowards who don;t want an upset staff member.

She actually said 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.

She doesn’t want to impose formal consequences but will have to if they don’t stop taking the piss. She’s been totally explicit and what she says doesn’t support your “impossible to replace” scenario. I’d put money on them being out the door in three months.

State it clearly in the job advert. Put a reminder about hybrid working in the interview invitation. Remind them at the interview. Remind them when you offer them a job.

I doubt it would make much difference. Some will accept the job thinking that they'll just slide into remote and kick up a fuss about how unfair it is if you try and remind them the hob is not remote.

So she's a manager who doesn't want the difficult bits of management?

I can see the frustration that it is hard to get people who will do exactly what you want them to do whilst not offering insanely high wage packets, but I really don't get it beyond that.

The employee is doing what is best for the employee, and OP need to step up and do the job of disciplining this person and hiring his replacement, or she needs to suck it up.

Also, she may need further training on the hiring process so she is better able to identify those people who will be a good fit.

PS - obv others in the organisation may be the ones doing the hiring and the disciplining, not OP

What do you mean by "Kicking up a fuss"?

Do you mean "getting angry and shouting at the boss" in which case that is probably a matter for HR or do you mean "making a written request"?

Also, you seem to be on my side when you say "I doubt it would make much difference." You seem to be accepting that candidates for well paid desk based jobs know they can be done from home, and are simply not going to accept bosses who demand they go in. This arrogance from staff doesn't come from stupid confidence, it comes from knowledge of the market they are in and the power they have.

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.

Agree with this. You may get less resistance to ‘office days’ if everyone comes in together, because then there’s a purpose to coming in, rather than coming in to ‘collaborate’ with no one but the cleaner

What does their employment contract say?

😂
Cost?

I know this is an alien concept to a lot of you on this thread but there are still people who want to keep their work and their home separate.

My point, was that instead of taking a job that has very clear stipulations and then trying to argue that those stipulations are ridiculous and don't apply to them is not on. They should either not take the job, or hand in their notice and go for a job that meets their requirements. The OP is not being unreasonable to be hacked off.

How does it negatively impact if the OP is offering flexible working around start and finish times as they already donwith a dad in their post?
Sounds more like people taking the job thinking they can work whatever they want when it's clearly set out its hybrid. If they wanted a WFH position, they should have applied for one!

OP YANBU. You have clearly stated your expectations at both interview and in your processes - people just like to push boundaries. Be careful, if you allow some to fall into this behaviour, others could call if bias behaviour and place grievances. Stick to your guns...its hybrid for a reason!

What rubbish!!!

There are, and yet OPs organisation have a 100% failure rate this year at getting people who want to do even the very flexible 2 days a week. She's described them going to some trouble, even going as far as restricting themselves to the locality only, and people move away or lie in the first place. It's no help to OP if these people you speak of aren't up for doing the jobs in her organisation for the wage and terms they want to offer.

I mentioned upthread actually, sometimes hybrid can be the worst of both worlds and perhaps that might be the case here. Because obviously the requirement to be in the office 2 days a week is unpopular with some employees. But equally, for someone who does want that separation, a 40% attendance requirement that your colleagues keep swerving and with no set days in won't tick your boxes either.

many office jobs NEED working in the office environment. wfh does NOT work for every business!! take dvla, some of their files are not on the internet so you need to have people in the office to get work done. passport office - people send in older passports but they would all be left lying on the doormat if no one went into the office!! it does not impact women any more than it has ever done. why do they need wfh??? what can they do when they are supposed to be working?? they cannot do childcare or the laundry or the cleaning because the paid employment would not get done!!!

But equally, for someone who does want that separation, a 40% attendance requirement that your colleagues keep swerving and with no set days in won't tick your boxes either.

What would work for those people is full time in the office, there’s no reason why that shouldn’t be on offer.

Depends really. If you just want to do your job somewhere that isn't your home, sure. It'll be fine for you. If what you want is to be in the office with your other team members then no it wouldn't. Either way, OPs organisation aren't attracting those people.

It isn't just the WFH thing, I've experienced a young , single PR assistant(male) who insisted they wanted paying extra to attend gigs and events (entertainment industry) things that others would kill to do.

The straight fact is, they were declined and not kept on either after probation.

Dont go into PR roles in most industries if you can't/wont rock up to your events.

Why shouldn't they be paid to work antisocial hours?

Either way, OPs organisation aren't attracting those people.

It doesn’t sound as if it’s even tried. Those people won’t apply for wfh or hybrid jobs.

Because their contemporaries are paying to go to them, they’re a perk.

I’d do that in a shot!!! I’m being s

a job with hybrid working? Who look after women too? Sign me up!!!

seriously! I’d throw everything I could to get a job like this.

But it's work, not a social event. They should either be financially compensated or given the time back.