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?

There was actually an article in the FT last week about how loyalty isn’t always a good thing. https://www.ft.com/content/be583262-8bc7-4ad0-884c-792656093c22

This is our experience too, we have failed to retain graduates for the periods where senior staff were not working in the office.

If it is to collaborate then the days should be set so that everyone is in on the same days to collaborate. I think some of the problem is people applying for jobs in one city with the idea that they can live anywhere on the planet because of wfh. It’s a bit draconian but perhaps during the recruitment process the question of how and how long their commute will actually be and then that be taken into consideration when hiring.

You say that like you imagine it helps your point.

Do you really think that everyone was fine with working in person as a norm, that nobody ever got excluded because of caring responsibilities, location, neurodivergence, disability? Because it's one thing you not having clocked it at the time, you'd have had plenty of company there. But to still think that as we stare down the barrel of 2024 is something else again.

There always have been and still are organisations who could fill all their vacancies two or three times over. Some employers are just more attractive than others. It seldom tells us much about the wider picture.

" I think some of the problem is people applying for jobs in one city with the idea that they can live anywhere on the planet because of wfh."

Yes to the above
OP also needs to be totally honest about what kind of quality of life the salary they are offering would give someone who lives within a very comfortable commute of their office (eg can walk it or get there in less than half an hour) compared with the quality of life (cost of housing etc) they would get for the same job but living further away.

Honestly, it is never reflected in the salary is it? The companies / managers just moan as if to say "it should be as it was pre pandemic" or "young people are so lazy and ungrateful" yada yada.

The truth is there will be people willing to do what you want and be in the office when you want them to be but they won't be the cream of the crop in terms of the best people to employ because they will find something more flexible.

This so much. We were slightly ahead of the curve prepandemic DH WFH on Tuesdays and Thursdays or Fridays. I WOTH Weds-Fri it was only way to make it fair.

Face to face conversations ‘we were clear that the team is hybrid and you are expected to attend work at a minimum of 2 days per week. For at least one week a month that should be 3. If you are not willing to do this, then it will be a disciplinary matter.’ Then manage out those who won’t comply with a reasonable management instruction, which is a gross misconduct offence.

I don't know what's going on with these entitled workers OP but if you pay me 100K+ I will be definitely be in your office twice a week!

It’s going to be a huge wake up call to a lot of people if we go into recession and unemployment starts to rise again. The workforce calling the shots is a luxury resulting from full employment, if and when times get hard again - and it’s looking to me like they will - things will change very rapidly.

I personally like once a week, can tolerate two but won’t go more than that for London commuting jobs. I’ve noticed that office days work best if the team are there and sat together- everyone seems to manage this well for one day and then are dotted around doing other days so often still spend a day in the office sat on teams. If people are genuinely using the office well then it feels worth it. When people are just sat there talking into headsets and not each other it feels a bit pointless and performative .

There is also the cost of living/inflation which affects the man on the street - which is ignored in terms of what that gets you by people who just throw out "six figure salary" as if those magic three words answers all and every living expense concern anyone could ever have in any circumstances and for any career/job demands......

As a slight aside, this is some pretty hard proof that the size of your salary isn't always an indication of how hard you work. Going to an office twice a week, with flexibility, is really not a huge demand for a top 5% salary.

By "flaky" you mean "those who have clear standards of what they want from an employer and won't take second best"

By "flaky" you mean "those who have clear standards of what they want from an employer and won't take second best"

or maybe

'Those who understand that they have signed a contract to work in a particular way, but think they can actually do something completely different' ?

Ooh what do you do? What are those samples? Is it chocolate tasting?

When I was a lot younger I had a job where I always turned up 5 minutes late... and I got lunch from a sandwich shop two minutes from the office, and worked past my contracted hours of 6pm. Guess what happened when the boss made a fuss about being in for 9am? I started - literally - going home for lunch every single day and taking the full hour, and leaving on the dot at 6. And left 6 months later!

Is it stone cold clear from the start in the job description, recruitment messaging, interview, contract, onboarding, training, mentoring, probation, line manager 1-1s etc that it's hybrid not remote? And that the requirement can change?

Do you actually need them in - or is it that the kings and queens want their courts around them again?

Is there actual evidence that their physical presence = productivity, delivery and results?

Does the requirement include a salary that acknowledges the cost of travelling? My current salary is way less than my previous one - only now I walk to work every day whereas previously I was up at 6 for a London commute at £££ per month. Result.

And as a manager your role does involve monitoring and managing attendance - should you take a role with an element you don't want to do?

No, I was referring to the people who didn't accept the job and the PP was describing as flakey because they refused to sign the TS and Cs on offer.

A lot of work today is collaborative - especially in what we might call the "knowledge economy" , and there's a huge amount of research to suggest that physical presence & co-location is an aid to that collaboration, especially in the serendipity of a casual chat with someone that turns into something more concrete.

I also find that if I need to check in informally with a colleague about a matter that is confidential, or more easily sorted in a face to face chat, being in-person is far superior to email or even Teams.

I'm actually desperate for a job in office full time 😂 Hopefully find something soon.

I wonder if its just a general change in the way people view a job these days. I work in a different industry and part of my role is hr. In the last 4 years attitudes have drastically shifted...
People coming for interview, accepting a probation period and then just inot turning up for their first day.
Demanding holiday days rather than asking if they fit in with the company.
Not turning up for shifts but not letting me know.
Not giving notice as per their contract and generally not giving a toss about the job.

it takes twice as long as it used to to fully staff my business and its a constant uphill struggle and stress, despite the fact we pay above average.

I don’t think a recession will make much difference to employment figures. We don’t have enough workers to fill the vacancies.

Gen Z and the Millennials will be calling the shots. Dil works with CAHMS. 25000 vacancies there alone.

Can I bid? I'll raise you 5 days in the office for the 6 figure job 😃

Oh, apologies @AnonnyMouseDave I read it as defending people like those the OP is trying to manage.
My mistake. Sorry.

I think the world has changed permanently. We have colleagues who were recruited, trained and began work during lockdown, and younger colleagues who spent a chunk of their school/college in lockdown. We've seen a new way of doing it, and the work life balance it brings. Plus the inclusivity for those who can't travel through disability etc. Businesses that don't embrace that will lose out on talent. Unless there is solid evidence that presence = productivity I think the push back is not going anywhere, whether manages wish it would or not.