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 the contract says they must be in the office two days, and they must be physically present to manage and support junior staff, then it's a simple breach of contract and surely disciplinary action can be taken?

I notice you say 'Once you have dropped the kids off'. What are you and all the other women who insist on WFH going to do when schools are sending home classes because they cannot recruit teachers. My granddaughter's nursery has had to send children home because of huge problems with staff recruitment.
It seems that people like you are full of 'don't do as I do, do as I say'
Why should some women get to cosily wfh and yet the great armies of women who do the majority of health care and childcare, don't have the same flexibility

Why are you so angry that other people have different career choices that allow them flexibility?

It's not actually any of your business but I work in the NHS, just not in a patient-facing role. I think I provide monumentally better value for money WFH thus saving precious healthcare resources.

I've not heard of any issues in recruitment of nursery or teaching staff - the opposite here where teachers qualify without being able to find a placement.

Also 'insist on WFH' please read my actual post without the chippy attitude and you'll see why I feel miffed about presenteeism for presenteeism's sake. I'm not insisting on anything.

This is just jealousy. It’s not a race to the bottom.

Women are allowed to leave teaching and seek a better life for themselves. The answer is not to artificially make conditions worse in other jobs so that there aren’t any more attractive routes for them to pursue.

The answer is to improve the pay and conditions in teaching!

I am a teacher and I want everyone whose job can be done (fully or partly) from home to have the option to do that if they choose.

Making other people unhappy in their jobs or unable to work doesn’t make my job any better or me any happier.

Hear hear!

Women on here are so quick to moan about the lack of carers. They don't see that insisting on the rights of some limited number of female workers to wfh has such a detrimental effect on the huge armies of women who cannot work from home. Look where the majority of women work, teaching, caring health care professionals, try campaigning for them otherwise society is going to crumble.

I always think it's quite interesting that people being able to exercise choice over where they work is often treated in a different way to other positives of a job such as pensions, better salaries, more holiday etc.

Overall, the total target for recruitment to teacher training for both primary and secondary was missed by 38 per cent. In total there were 26,955 new entrants to ITT in 2023-24 compared to 28,463 in 2022-23, 36,159 in 2021-22 and 40,377 in 2020-21.7 Dec 2023

If anything I think WFH possibly makes things better for teachers. My DH and I are able to be so much more present, available and engaged in our DCs school life due to our flexibility. Ten years ago we'd have dropped them at breakfast club, picked them up from after school club and that was that. We'd not have been involved in anything extracurricular, not seen or spoken to the teacher etc. We'd have needed a day off to pop into the school for a 20 minute assembly etc. Now we can fold it into a flexible work life. It's revolutionary.

My DSIS is a teacher and misses the assemblies and nativities and party drop offs etc. It is shit but she loves the rest of her job.

www.theguardian.com/education/2023/sep/12/only-half-of-required-number-of-trainee-secondary-teachers-in-england-recruited

My point is that under capitalism everyone's "job" is to look out for themselves the best way they can. I believe that the employee is doing that. OP now needs to do what is best for her (which involves sacking the employee... unless they messed up his contract and he's not in breach).

Women on here are so quick to moan about the lack of carers. They don't see that insisting on the rights of some limited number of female workers to wfh has such a detrimental effect on the huge armies of women who cannot work from home. Look where the majority of women work, teaching, caring health care professionals, try campaigning for them otherwise society is going to crumble

Now take a deep breath for this, it's a shocker, but maybe - just maybe - The Menz could take on some caring roles both at home in the classroom? That can only be a good thing, surely.

I always think it's quite interesting that people being able to exercise choice over where they work is often treated in a different way to other positives of a job such as pensions, better salaries, more holiday etc
I'm not sure it is by many sensible people.

I'd not take a job with Company Pension A and then 4 weeks in decide that the company need to offer me Lola's Personal Pension Scheme that does exactly what I think is best for me.

I didn't work term time only, and then demand that my schools allowed me to take 2 weeks term time holiday because it would have been better or cheaper for me.

Same if I took a hybrid role. I'm signing up to a hybrid work pattern, so wouldn't accept a hybrid job and then refuse to come in, make excuses or be awkward because Big Important Lola would rather not use breakfast club for DC, and it's a bit annoying to do the commute a couple of days a week, and I don't think it's that important to go in.

We accept or decline the employment packages offered, or negotiate before accepting. If some wants to WFH they need to find a job that is WFH.

At the moment the NHS relies hugely on overseas recruitment. If this is cut back it will result in greater shortages in health care. There is talk about people on job seekers allowance being forced to accept work as carers.

If it is 100% social then there is zero reason for the employer to demand attendance.

Recruitment and retention issues
These include: High vacancy rates: Skills for Care, the workforce development and planning body for adult social care in England, estimates an average of 9.9% of roles in adult social care were vacant in 2022/23, equivalent to approximately 152,000 vacancies.14 Nov 2023

commonslibrary.parliament.uk › ...

Nobody said it was social at all. It’s a perk.

Can you confirm that they are at liberty to get as drunk as any other audience member and blanking any other audience member or promoter or artist if they want is fine? If so then they are not working. If you have ANY EXPECTATIONS of them then it's work in my view.

TBF I wrote that before clocking that the poster concerned was blatantly on a wind up.

It does come up though, people in good faith talking about remote working being a double standard, totally failing to apply the same logic to things like wages, holiday and pensions. I pointed it out to someone on another remote working thread maybe a week or two ago. Would agree with you it's not a sensible take, though!

The other stuff you've written about people trying to change the terms once they're in isn't what the sub-discussion was about, though obviously it is the wider topic of this thread. That being said, it's another example of people saying others 'need to' do things that they do not in fact need to do, when what they actually mean is they think people should. The reality is that people do what they think they can get away with, and sometimes it works.

So because some people have it really tough in minimum wage jobs then highly skilled professionals capable of earning six figures should suck up whatever shit their boss chucks at them!??!?

Because some jobs can be done remotely and others can't, and the way to make a job more attractive is not to make other jobs worse.

If so many people would eschew teaching because they'd rather wfh then the answer would appear to be to pay and treat teachers better rather than remove advantages from other industries. I'm not in PR so I don't get lots of consumer freebies; should we prevent PR people from getting them because my industry doesn't?

Well, what I am fed with is employers recruiting staff who live over two hours away (2 hours each way) from the office and have a disability, who made this very clear at the interview stage and promising them that they won't have to commute more than once a month maximum.

Then same employer six months later tells the same employee to come in once a week so they can 'show their face'...

The charity I work for did this to me.

The flexible working was the only reason I took the job as the pay is not great (so it makes no financial sense for me to pay to commute once a week on that salary) and there is little progression available.

So now I am job hunting to leave this role as soon as I can because I don't like being misled...

My point is it is not just employees who are unreasonable when it comes to WFH.

Absolutely superb post and I could not agree more.

Facing the responsibilities outlined in the contract you willingly entered into is called fulfilling your commitments. Hardly a case of having 'shit chucked at you'.

That last paragraph is half right.

NO, we negotiate before accepting and after accepting. If someone wants to WFH they have two choices... get a WFH job or get and non-WFH job and try to negotiate it into a WFH job any which legal way you can.