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?

@BIossomtoes didnt see that in your post anywhere, and so what if they want to work from home taking the role, seems OP wasn’t clear or she wouldn’t have to come onto Mumsnet asking for advice on how to do her job.

Seems some have learned little from
Covid. All a bit regressive to me.

Some people do actually enjoy what they do for a living, nothing wrong with that.

If the employer deems their business to be run better when the employees are in the office a couple of days a week, then that’s that. Get another job if you don’t like it. I honestly don’t understand how people don’t understand that. The entitlement on this thread is laughable.

Our company imposed a company wide 'team charter' discussed and agreed in teams. It included how the 40% in the office would work and included a fixed day in the office and a flexible day based on meetings and needs

It also works for our business needs to have a quick 20 minute meeting first thing on Monday which includes what days everyone's in that week. And they need to be added to your calendar. All of this reinforces the expectation to come in and makes it easy to track those who don't.

Well, because it isn't necessarily that's that.

Employers can deem that, and they can also refuse to employ any staff who don't observe this requirement. This doesn't mean they can get enough of the staff they need, at the wage they can pay, who are willing to accept that level of office attendance. And it sounds like this may be the situation OPs organisation are finding themselves in.

No, the situation they find themselves in is employing people who SAY they are happy to go in and understand the requirements, who then backtrack and moan knowing they’re protected by employment law and can’t be binned off too easily.

No, the situation they find themselves in is employing people who SAY they are happy to go in and understand the requirements, who then backtrack and moan knowing they’re protected by employment law and can’t be binned off too easily
That's partly right. You're right about them backtracking and moaning.

The employment law is a red herring.

Give it time and the government will shift from it's anti-immigrant rhetoric, through it's current anti-disabled people rhetoric and will be coming for average workers.
It's no accident that there's been pushes against freedom of speech, peaceful protest, trying to get people angry about the court of human rights, wanting to slash and burn 'eu red tape', and going after people who need benefits. The long game is an erosion of rights for average people.

I'm all for challenging people taking the piss in the workplace, but am not in favour of setting up employment law and workers' rights as the fall guy on this one.

It's not an either/or. Either way, much comes down to whether the employers are offering enough to buy what they want.

Although saying that I'm not sure how far the new 2023 recruits would be protected by employment law. It's not like people who worked for an organisation before March 2020, only started remote working then but have done it so long that it raises the issue of implied changes to custom and practice. Nothing said by OP to suggest there's any question of reasonable adjustments either.

I agree but this is where such micky takers will lead us. They’re going to make it very easy for the government to paint workers as shirkers and appeal to generations who feel they ‘worked hard all their lives and never got to sit at home listening to radio 2’. This attitude that employers are now going to have to roll over and offer staff whatever they want because they’re desperate for employees, and therefore we can break the terms of our contracts and accept jobs we have no intention of doing as promised, is a nonsense and just wishful thinking.

It’s like posters just aren’t reading the OP properly.

Clearly OP was offering what they wanted because they took the job. They then broke the terms of their employment by refusing to attend the office as agreed.

But everyone is responding like OP has written ‘why won’t anyone agree to work for me when I offer peanuts and insist on full time attendance?’

Eh, not really. People do take jobs with the intention of trying to change things about them, even when those terms are more clearly expressed than what OP describes.
Much discussion has followed about whether people should do that, but one of the things this thread makes clear is that it is a thing that happens.

Either way though, can't see how they're protected under employment law in this situation based on what OP has written. The dilemma OPs organisation are facing is that for some time there's been a mismatch between what they're offering and what they've been able to recruit.

Going by this thread, it reads like the majority of the working public believe they’re entitled to change employment conditions after accepting a job. Therefore what they’re looking for - people who show up and do the job as we all did in previous years - will be in more demand. And those people will have their pick. Then the pendulum will swing and the previous group will wonder why they’re not being promoted.

Naptrappedmummy
I agree with you. It's opening the gates to divide and rule between workers, which is very very short sighted.

One look at how striking workers in unionised workforces are presented should be a warning sign to any average Joe. This divide and rule is not done to benefit average people. It's to try and get a mandate to attack rights for normal people, which includes people who are rightfully annoyed at piss takers.

The thing that amazes me is that some people won't join unions, won't engage with collective action, but then moan that they've been given weekend work in a weekend job or their hybrid job is hybrid so they'll not come in or be awkward about it. It's such an individualistic attitude, which suits people who want to clamp down on workers realising that there's a collective benefit to us all pushing for decent terms, preserving workers' rights, employment protection and so on.

Personally think you’re too flexible. You insist on two days a week but aren’t arsed which days so this could and inevitably does change week to week which must surely change the office dynamic anyway… You also don’t care if someone leaves early so don’t even insist on set hours. I think you need to be more stringent with the hybrid rules. Should be two days set by you as an employer with set hours.

The pendulum swing is guesswork. Personally I think we're in such a time of flux there's really no way to know what's coming, albeit I could see the current drive to bring the public sector back in getting reversed as a cost cutting measure, once the Tories are out. But generally, these are unprecedented times.

And again, if you're going to say that employment law protects someone in a particular situation, really need to be clear about why.

Absolutely. I think hybrid working is the solution but I think it will only work if employees (and employers! But that isn’t the issue here) honour their agreements about office/workplace attendance and don’t abuse the system. The ones who do will ruin it for all of us. And, because people are naturally shrewd and want to succeed, those who offer 100% attendance and reject trying to wrangle their employer for yet more flexibility will come out top. Then they’ll set the example; and we will all end up back at work full time again 🤷🏼‍♀️ spectacular own goal.

Teachers do not try this because they know for a fact that the head isn't going to change the term times for them.

Office workers do take the piss because they know (as OP is proving, in her case at least) that they can get away with it.

Has it occurred to you that maybe these micky-taking employees of OPs were - of all the applicants - the ones most willing to come in as required?

Surely if OP is competent then not turning up when required is an open and shut case of breech of contract and they can be sacked (subject to the reality of the labour market, which OP might know means she already has the best staff she can possibly hope for)

You said that twice now. But the OP said upthread that she had other candidates who were happy to come in, so it’s not a question of the eventual candidates being the only people available

Has it occurred to you that maybe these micky-taking employees of OPs were - of all the applicants - the ones most willing to come in as required?
Your point being what?

You're not actually going to suggest if someone applies for a job they say they want, does an interview and says they want a job, and accepts a job they say they want, it should be expected that those people are dishonest?

If so how should people apply for jobs if they're being truthful in their job applications, if telling the truth should be considered by potential employers as dishonesty and a sign of future cheeky fuckers?

(1) I have accepted many jobs in my life. Not a single one did the employer offer what I wanted.

(2) If they broke the terms of the contract then why does OP not sack? Did she fuck up the contracts, or does she know that the contract terms are only as enforceable as the reality of the labour market will allow, and the reality is that she is not offering enough to persuade obedient staff who love commuting to apply?

Maybe OP has considered this, but is not willing to pay the (say) £30k pa extra it would cost to find workers willing to accept?

The OP has no way of knowing if they'd have actually stuck to that, though. The fact that this has happened repeatedly now, that she has stories about people who have even gone to some lengths to avoid attempts to recruit those only living locally, means it's not an assumption you can make.

The more often this happens and the longer it happens for, the less likely it seems that they're just choosing badly.

I would expect those hiring to use their brains to critically appraise what the candidate is saying and make a judgement as to the extent to which the words coming out of the mouth are likely to be true. I would then expect the employer to draw up a contract which means that those who lied at interview stage can be sacked with minimum notice / hassle.

"But the OP said upthread that she had other candidates who were happy to come in, so it’s not a question of the eventual candidates being the only people available" Maybe these other candidates were also lying? Maybe they appeared more honest but they were not employed by OP because they wanted £30k pa more than OP was willing to offer?