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?

Yeah this drives me mad. We have had people move and now complain. We are going from 40% - 60% and everyone’s up in arms. Especially all the people who were still at home 100% as they decided they didn’t need to be in (and approved by their deputy directors). All changing and everyone’s in now and even though we can do our job from home, we get a lot more out of 2-3 days in the office. I’m making it clear to all my staff they are expected in 40% now, 60% soon. If they don’t like it they are welcome to apply for other jobs

Drylce we sit together. It is hot desks but

We try to make office time enjoyable, it is a nice office, there are snacks & coffee/tea provided free, and we have a little celebration with a cake if someone has a birthday. We have a meeting space that is just for our teams use because when in office we are mainly working in groups.

Also we have a member of team with a physical disability and one who is neurodiverse and interestingly they are very reliable attending!

I live about 1.5 hours from work. I don’t earn a six figure salary - about half of that!
I manage 2-3 days a week in the office. Sometimes 4. Depends on my schedule, and what’s in person/remote.
It was clear in the interview/offer that at least two days were expected. I don’t have kids, but I do have other (adult with disabilities) caring responsibilities, and my boss is great with if I need to be a bit flexible around that.

Can you set the days for people to be on site, or does the job need to be more responsive than that? I usually quite enjoy going in on a Friday, as the commute isn’t as busy, so I never mind that. Hate a Tuesday, as it always seems to be rammed, and I have to see to my relative that night, so it’s always a bit of a rush. I think people will start to get resentful, if they are always coming in to plan, and they see others not bothering, so it is important for team morale too.

I agree with you.
Looking back at your original post however, and more particularly: ' There's flex about which days but we ask that people try to mostly hit the core days of tues/weds/thurs', I think I would establish clearer rules and avoid words like 'mostly'/ 'flex about which days', which I think may lead staff to think it's fine to play with the system.
How about getting staff to input which three days they will be attending for any given month with whatever rule you want (e.g. preferably the three days will be tues/wed/thu but if not two days have to be a combination of tues/wed/thursday)? That would give some flexibility to staff while at the same time reinforcing the fact they have to be in three days.

@PastelHouses It isn't bollocks. 97% of single parents are women, and it really does impact us.

Your ignorance is showing..

It sounds like your policy is a bit vague. I prefer giving people set days to come in which aren’t flexible. It means the whole team is in on the same days and office morale is better. Flexible working across different days of the week means the office can be quiet and staff don’t mix as much. There’s less desire to go in if you think no one else is going to be there.

Absolutely rubbish as evidenced by the single mother who has posted above about how flexible working works well for them. You don’t speak for all women and I find your post very ageist. The young generation are not the be all and end all of the working population. And I would actually argue that the environmental impact is worse as people working from home will be be heating their homes more during the colder weather so the impact on the environment may actually be worse from sole home working.

To those saying the younger generation and ‘snowflakes’ only want wfh ime the younger ones are anti wfh. I’m struggling with mid careers 40-50ish who are refusing to come in the office! This is penalising the youngsters because the are meant to be learning from the seniors.

It isn't bollocks. 97% of single parents are women, and it really does impact us.

This is why we offer to people to start later & finish earlier (9.30- 4.30) we know its hard with childcare pick ups, and we trust people to catch up in evening

We also are ok with part time and have a few on job shares

Your work pattern and office environment sound great…what exactly do you do where you get to wfh most of the time and have a relaxed office atmosphere?

<Misses the point>

@PomPomSugar Agreed. In our office, the younger ones, in house shares or small flats WANT to come to a warm spacious office and they tend to live closer.

Make the office days fixed but also look at the things which ensure that time is collaborative.

• are you all able to sit together? Hot desks may be great for office occupation efficiency but don't necessarily work if the team is scattered about the office or even between floors
• are you having in person meetings on those days with no possibility to dial in?

Basically make the office time purposeful. I find the tick box office days frustrating

"I have worked at offices where there was a set NUMBER of days but no set DAYS. I found a) this was unhelpful - the point isn't to be in the office, it doesn't matter where your body is in space; the point is simultaneity and to be together and b) it can cause people to feel that coming in is pointless, if they come in and others aren't there that day so they're on Zoom all day anyway. This increases the likelihood they won't bother coming in in future. C) it's hard to monitor without using some form of tracking system."

Couldn't agree more with this. I've been a full time worker in an office (due to my circumstances at the time) where people are "encouraged" to be in, and now "expected to be in 2 days a week". The number of times I've been sat all alone in my section maybe one or two colleagues in AT ALL is incredible. It's boring, cold, and pointless, and if I'd chosen to make that one of my days to come in and done a long commute I'd be fuming. OP in your case I wonder if you could either stipulate one compulsory day e.g. everyone in on Tuesday, and then give them the option of Weds or Thurs for the other - or just say everyone in Tues and Weds.

I do also think it's a bit annoying if there's nothing to come in FOR, so perhaps a bit of encouragement in the form of big team meeting on Tues, followed by team lunch (optional) or something else more social to encourage people getting to know their colleagues?

New graduates are the ones who did online learning during the pandemic so will often be well aware that in person learning is far more superior to online. Many people are sociable and would rather sit next to a colleague and work rather than work from their bedroom because they house share or live in a home that’s too small to have an office.

Sorry but what a load of bollocks about online learning. I did partial online learning as a mature student - by 3rd year we were back in person for some of it as well as the first half of first year. I did far better with home learning than I ever did having to sit through in person lectures and there's no way in person is "far more superior". We got asked if we wanted to go back in person and the vast majority of my cohort (in fact everybody bar 1) said they'd rather work from home.

In terms of the original point of the thread, it's a difficult one. Whilst I prefer online learning, I prefer in person work even if that means a long commute. What I would say though is do you really need people in person? If not and the work can reasonably be done from home, I can understand them complaining. I think your only option really is to monitor it more (which sucks for you) or specify specific days and times people have to be in.

We do hybrid, 2 days office and 3 days wfh, although I often do 3 days office as I like going in. I do enjoy the flexibility though, this week my kids caught a sick bug so we able to do 1 day office and the rest home.

My managers will be flexible on the 2 days if its an absolute good reason not to go in. Buy we're also a national team so staff is spread around and we're used to working remotely with each other..where we are doesn't make a difference..

This. Definetly. Is there an actual purpose for them to be in ? Nothing worse than coming in when it does involve a long commute and discover no one else is in ! Does this apply to all the organisation incl higher management? If the policy is vague and people are interpreting this as they wish. Could there be one set day where everyone is in ? That's what works with my organisation.

Clearly they are being unreasonable if it was made clear what the expectation is and they're now grumbling. However - perhaps they were ok with it in theory but now they are doing the role they feel as if the number of days is arbitrary and that they're not getting anything out of the commute.

If people are in on different days, perhaps they come in and then sit there with nobody else in the team in, and are on Teams calls all day. In that scenario I can see why they might not want to bother.

Totally agree. It's only in the last few years - really since the pandemic - that women have been given the opportunity to work remotely and for people like me, single mums raising children who can't afford to live in bloody London, it's been a godsend. Most knowledge working jobs don't actually need people in the office for two days. The 'collaboration' is really just presenteeism, rebranded by managers who don't want to admit that's what it is. All the stats show that productivity isn't impacted by remote working. It's better for gender equity and the environment. The decision to try and force people into offices isn't driven by data - it's companies who've already paid the lease on expensive buildings who don't want to 'waste their investment'.

The whole ‘working in be office disproportionally impacts women’ is really over used and actually misused.

The solution isn’t to make every single role wfh. It’s is impossible to do so. That also doesn’t suit every single parent. The solution is to be as flexible as possible which isn’t just about wfh.

Home working also disproportionatelynegatively impacted women during the pandemic.

Op has explained many times that they are very flexible in many ways.

OP, I think maybe you are too nice! You can get a long, long way managing people with the carrot, and you obviously do that very well…but sometimes you need the stick, or at least the dim possibility of the stick. 😈

Are you making sure that when people come to the office it is actually beneficial to them and the wider team in a measurable way ? Or do they come in after a stressful long commute to then log on to Teams calls straight away that could’ve just as well been done from home? If you tell them they are needed to provide training to less experienced team members is it actually happening when they are in, or is the reality that the team have no questions and your staff just sit there for the leadership optics? Are face to face meetings productive and bring anything to the table that virtual meetings don’t ? Even the most creative industries collaborate successfully online so what is it that makes f2f better in your company? Is it someone's preference based on their personal bias rather than evidence?

Skilled employees are very valuable and in today’s market they have the upper hand, so it’s important to respect their time and ensure that the “need to be in the office” is not just an over -enthusiastic concept of what the leaders perceive the company culture to be.

We have to look at physical samples & discuss/compare as part of the job. They are expensive we don't get like 8 samples that could be sent to individual homes.

It really doesn't work doing it on screen! Its not just bullshit collaboration. We need to be there to do this work. We've already said all the "paperwork" type side of the job can be on screen but we need to do this bit in person, we need to show the trainees how to do this work.

The stick is only effective with staff who need to stick to the current employer (desperate, low skilled, too scared to move on, too loyal). Anyone else will just vote with their feet and go for the carrot.