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?

Do these staff members contracts make clear that training is one of their duties?

In my view you should stop whinging. It is literally the job of employees to try to get the best deal they can for themselves (ideally by managing to blag 5 days working from home a week, whilst getting away with doing zero work and getting promoted). It is your job to try to get them to work hard and do what you want them to, from the office if that's what you want.

Ultimately you need to sack people if they breach the terms and conditions of their employment, and my honest belief is that there is one main reason for your anger. You know that you can't sack these people because the next person you employ will make exactly the same demands to work from home, unless you bribe them with an offer of £30k a year more salary and you don't want to give the next person £30k extra.

The market is allowing these people to whinge because you don't pay them enough to make it worth their while doing exactly what you want with no complaints and they know it.

I know every industry is different but post covid, a year or two back, a friend of mine is in an IT team of around 10, who were all ordered back in the office. The leader of the team said "I've moved to the other end of the country, sorry, I can't come in" and the rest of the team simply said "no" and they all work from home still apart from those who left to get better jobs or to take some time out.

Could you have a basic salary and a bonus. The bonus only for people who have done their required office days.

Six figure salaries make it worthwhile for most people...

Work is not just about the benefits to the employee or the employer - it has to work for both sides. If part of the job requires in person collaboration on eg reviews of physical samples in this case or for the development/coaching of juniors then it won't work for both sides in the absence of some in person work.

Depending on the area you are walking in don't forget your hi vi's jacket and head torch plus actual torch for seeing where you are putting your feet!

You will also need suitable office shoes and somewhere to clean off and store your walking boots.

A trundle truck or wheelbarrow should do the job.

I work from home full time, as do my two colleagues. I knew this was the case when I joined and it works well for us. However, I don't think you're being unreasonable. I found a job opportunity recently that really excited me, for more money and in a slightly different industry. However, it said "hybrid" so I contacted them to ask what their expectations were. They said 3 days in London a week. I can't make that work so I just didn't apply. It's as simple as that. If you're very clear in job advertising, in contracts etc, it's not unreasonable. Perhaps it's a case that your employees needed something a bit more solid in terms of expectations. There seems to be some good advice in this thread already.

• dock London allowance (if London)
• make it 3 days per week a key factor in bonus and performance appraisal
• disciplinary action may be taken for serial offenders

You only need to put one person through one disciplinary and end it with a formal written warning for people to quit or book their ideas up.

I'd make it a bigger percentage factor in your bonuses.

There isn't much I wouldn't do for 6 figures TBH. OP's employees have no idea how lucky they have it on 100k only attending 2 days a week.

I say that as someone who finds my 2 days in with 6 hours total commute time on a significantly less, with three kids, extremely east to manage. I am also a massive advocate for WFH if possible, and find the whole "In office for the sake of it, team building, collaboration" bullshit absolutely abhorrent after the world miraculously coped with it fine for two years.

You're in a tight labour market in which working practices have rapidly changed. If your colleagues are breaching contractual terms, you remind them, and ultimately you end the contract. But in reality, how willing you are to do that will depend on your propsects of replacing them, and the costs of replacing them. If that looks unappetising - there's your answer. Be graceful about it and you might gain a competitive advantage. The 'going rate' is calculated in terms and conditions as well as salary.

I mean beneficial to doing the job. OP says the reviewing the samples doesn’t work online but is that just her view - what we don’t know is are the employees happy doing it online? Or are they avoiding that task?

I've just sacked someone for this. Made it very clear that the expectation was 4 days a week in the office. 2nd week in, he was trying to cut it to 3, then he started telling me 5 mins before he was due in that he wasn't coming.

Ended up sacking him before the end of his probation. Apparently 'no one' wants people back in the office. He was shocked he was being sacked! We were extremely clear up front and in his contract.

What bullshit, so if s woman is a surgeon she also has to be fully remote if not she is negatively impacted? OP already said there some flexibility to leave early to pick kids etc but somehow you think women have to be home all day if not they are negatively impacted.

Yes there are jobs that can be done fully remove and there are jobs that require collaboration face to face, you make your decision when applying. In this situation they made it clear the expectations so why did he or she still apply only to then complain?

I would argue that the large majority of jobs CAN be done remotely

You wouldn't be able to argue that with any of the 4 adult members I live with. All of us in very different careers, none of which could be done remotely. Nothing to do with team building, just that an actual physical presence is required.

Surely you just give them a written warning the first one or two times, and sack them the third... or is your problem - as I strongly suspect - that you know that there is no-one willing to come in two days a week for the salary you are offering and you don't want to pay extra in order to convince people it is worth their while coming in when they don't want to, hate the commute, hate the expense of the commute and hate that they have to stay late to finish work that took ages because they were being interrupted by junior staff needing training (even though they have no training responsibilities in their contract)?

Many if not most jobs in that salary range are hybrid or remote nowadays - software developer, solicitor, senior civil servant, financial services etc. Even barristers aren’t in court in person every day, management consultants are prepping their slides while WFH, etc.

What is clear from this discussion is that there is no right or wrong answer and we can't generalise to specific demographic groups. However, that misses the point. The OP was clear on the T&Cs and, whether the new starts agree or not, they accepted the job on those terms. OP, I think the previous suggestions to mandate the days to be in would have the most impact, as that way people can plan and have structure.

Have you actually sat them down and reminded them that this is what their contract says and what they applied for?

What are the key bits they're missing out on by not being in the office?

Suggestions to make 3 days a week in a key factor in performance and bonus appraisal runs serious risk of being discriminatory.

Just reading your OP, the whole focus was on how flexible and accommodating you are and how they can pick and choose x and y etc, and then there’s a bit about “asking”
and “trying” to come in. Essentially I think you’re probably presenting yourselves as flexibility first and actually you need to present yourselves as “you need to come in to the office on x and y days and outside of that we can offer some flexibility”. Just turning your head around on it a bit. If I heard all that spiel in the OP I would probably think that once I had my boots on the ground I could indeed do whatever I wanted.

I feel your pain! My job is a similar set up but without the six figure salary sadly! Some aspects of the job are more efficient wfh with meetings over teams working fine. Other aspects require full team participation in person. There are certain team members who are never ever in even for particular key dates in the calendar which should be non negotiable. Not only do they not come in but afterwards they quibble decisions that were made in their absence. If you have something to say, be part of the discussion! They don't even have the excuse of a long commute.

Almost by definition they know they are not that lucky - if they knew they were lucky they would be fearful of losing their jobs and they'd do what they were told. If the pay OP offers was really good, then they wouldn't take the piss and risk getting sacked. If they knew there were other people who would come in on demand they would know they need to come in or they'll get sacked. These people are taking the piss because they know that the worst case is that they get sacked and quickly get another job just the same.

Why do people do this?

Simply because you condone/allow it by doing nothing.

Tell them their contract is hybrid and expected in the office a minimum of 2 days a week. If they cannot do the 2 days in any given week they need to inform you and come in 3 days the following week to make up for it.

If they don't like it refer back to their contract and suggest they formally apply for flexible working (which you can then turn down). Expect some attrition.

Apply fairly and consistently to all staff with the same contract.

OP I agree with you I think you’ve been clear and I think the WFH culture depends on industry.

In my profession WFH entirely or almost is not an unreasonable ask. It’s a niche area so we can ask for it too and usually get it as we are in demand. I live up north and visit London office once a month. A lot at my workplace couldn’t have got away with that.

My work is very data driven so I am much more productive at home not getting it interrupted but I like visiting the office for the building relationships side. Their desk setup is also quite poor for a 100% desk based role so I prefer my set up et home.

In my field I judge any employer who is arsy about home working because being office based just isn’t necessary. An employer I interviewed with who wanted to give me the job but decided against due to my home working request still hasn’t hired anyone 1.5 years later… which I predicted.

I made it very clear that WFH with some occasional office visits was my requirement at interview stage. So your colleagues are being v unreasonable.

@Benibidibici why do you need everyone in 2 days minimum? Say someone commutes a long way, gets to the office and no one else is there, or there is no need for them to be in that day, wouldn't that just be really annoying?