New manager want me in the office. I wfh-help!

[Stressedgiraffe]

We've changed management structure so my new manager wants me in the office. Ideally once a week but might settle for every month.
I've been there over 2 years. I wfh permanently but my contract says HQ.
I live 5 hours away always have done. They knew where I lived when I started. I go into the office about every 3/4 months for a few days .
Could I push for a change in location in my contract or do you think I'm screwed?

@ClaudiaWankleman A contract may or may not have written terms (it should) but the minute you do a job and accept money from an employer for the work, you have a contract. An employee must be given a written statement of terms. The mistake here was not to write in the variation agreed at the time of employment.

The terms of the contract can be varied by agreement. In this case they have been because the employee is not working full time at HQ.She is working remotely which the employer knew about and agreed to because it’s been happening. Therefore she’s working remotely by contractual agreement by both parties.

So being asked to go into the office is another variation. The employee can agree to it or not. Usually employer and employee negotiate. As part of the negotiation the OP could be compensated for agreeing to the varied contract the employer now wants. The employer must consult with the employee and listen to them but must also give details about why a variation is necessary. There must be good reasons for it and bullying or taking control aren’t good business reasons. This should involve a written proposal and discussions. Most people can agree and find a solution. Contracts of employment escorted varied and employers should know how to approach this by making a sound business case for any change to a contract and written terms and engaging with the employee.

I'd have them all back in the office or collecting P45s.

Speak to that employment lawyer and go over your JD, communications from them about the role and your contract in microscopic detail! Get a definitive line.

Expenses for an agreed regular attendance might be negotiable especially as they headhunted you.

Manager requirements may be changing because the role and the business and its needs are changing. Refusing to adapt can be what gets people managed out.

I would lean heavily on the employer's responsibility not to discriminate against you because you are a carer. It's so obviously a WFH post (whatever the contract says, and it sounds as if you have a lot of paperwork to support WFH) and they need to accommodate your carer's rights plus possibly your own rights depending on the reason you don't drive (which I've elicited from other posters rather than reading the thread as carefully as perhaps I should). Yes, legal advice a good idea, but hopefully HR will fold if you happen to mention that you are taking advice about the above points.

Added bit of gratuitous advice - your manager does sound to be in the wrong, but give her wriggle room and let her come out of this feeling good. Remarks like 'of course carers' rights are so new that no line managers have time to keep up with all this stuff' (said a bit more elegantly than that) will show that you appreciate the difficulty for her but because of your own life experience and difficulties know that the law is there to support you....

Let her go to HR if the HR are any good they will tell her what she wants she cannot have, you have done it from the start and have evidence to say you were employed on that basis, just because it’s written in your contact doesn’t mean anything as you have been doing it so long it has become custom and practice and therefore an implied term and if it were me I would be requesting a copy of the grievance policy as they should be consulting formally if they wish to make this change, you can go down the informal route first and if they don’t listen go formal.
I would then submit a flexible working request, I think they would struggle to reject it given that that’s what you were employed to do and have been doing so for 2 years without issues. There are 8 businesses reasons they can give to reject and unless you are under performing I wouldn’t see how they can reject that. Good luck and don’t take any shit, if you have over 2 years service then don’t resign contact acas and get your ducks in a row first.

Why? And what would you do about the constructive dismissal lawsuits?

Many many bitter people on this thread. I don't think geographical location should matter if you're getting the work done. You shouldn't get paid less: it's about skills. If more companies paid this way, more places would be better off, as the money wouldn’t all be diverted to London. People in lower paid jobs are the ones that suffer, and there you are gleeful at people being paid even less. Shame on you.

Furthermore, its not entitlement, it's progress. We have weekends, and children no longer work, women can vote, and we have unions…

Boris and his mates want people in offices, cry me a river; do you know how much rentals cost? They've more than made their money on those rentals.

People have disabilities, and chronic illness, and your colleagues aren't your friends. Though I have made friends in all my roles, I have other priorities now. Presenteeism is so f stupid and backwards. I'm not against seeing my colleagues in person, but I don't need to. I don't want to be sat on the floor for 2 hours in a train and pay a day’s wages for this pleasure.

We are slaving away 40 hours plus a week, yet we are still struggling with cost of living crisis; and to add insult to injury we also have to be in an office, so we can stay under someone’s thumb as adults. Even when this isn't the case, people don't actually socialise all that much in the office; not unless you're going in regularly. It's mostly heads down.

It's even more ludicrous when you think that we are in the era of AI…we are so advanced, yet so backwards.

Why can't we have a mix - people that want to go in, those that don't, those that want to occasionally. If employees are happy and productive, and companies save money (smaller offices), and the environment is benefitting, then what is the issue?

You can be a slacker at home or work, before you try that argument. Other businessws such as Pret that are losing out, well my friend, business is about adaptability. You have to change with the times. Some won't survive, and that is the nature of business.

Don't need to go in on a daily basis, as lovely as they are. I do like seeing people and socialising, but have health issues which have always made office working very difficult.

Do you need to WFH to support your disabled DH? Are there policies at your organisation for carers / disabilities carers?
I'd go to HR myself, don't rely on her and also if your contract states your niche area then is she trying to deskill you?

Definitely time for you to speak to HR, make sure to express concern about the proposed change to your role & your work pattern, especially given your personal responsibilities

I wanted to add, I wouldn't be in a rush to hand in your notice. The jobs market seems weeker and remote options are becoming less frequent.

Bur do start looking and get some good legal advice.

My daughter also normally WFH for her global team though she usually goes in one day a week and doesn't have your journey. They want staff to go in more but expect them to hot-desk and 25 people only have 6 desks. My fear is that they're trying to cut down on the number of staff - she doesn't belong to a union.

Something tells me you have fallen into a rabbit hole of thinking you are doing your employer a massive favour. A fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and all that. They don't pay you to be a carer. One day in the office a month might remind you of that fact. Harsh, but true.

Do not hand in your notice OP, I can understand why you feel that way, but don’t play into the new managers hand.

I am sure HR will confirm that you were employed as a remote worker, with occasional trips to office. It could be that new manager has been given the remit to get people back into the office and is unaware of the terms of your employment. Or simply wants to manage you out of the role. Either way, it’s not on.

Definitely get some legal advice, ACAS.

good luck OP.

Then you’d be a terrible employer and manager, who would spend all their time defending costly constructive/unfair dismissal claims.

This. My husband has been in the process of trying to coax his reportees back into the office 3/5 days a week after the lockdown period and accepts that there are some for whom it is now now possible (they’ve had kids, lost parents who helped with childcare etc), even though company policy is a return to 60:40 hybrid model. He negotiates the issue via HR so that each employee is centred in the discussion and their rights and needs are fully considered. It’s not his place to dictate where his existing staff work, especially if it involves a change to the status quo. He simply makes sure the 60:40 ratio is set out as a T&C in new hires.

Do t have in your notice, you were hired to work remotely!

Just wait til HR confirm it to your manager - that will likely be the end of the discussion and you won't have to change.

Don’t hand in your notice. She is emailing HR? You can do that too. Attach everything you have that shows you accepted the job as a remote post, the job listing, and all correspondence. Highlight the fact that you were headhunted and your carer status/health conditions.

And casually throw in the fact that due to this and the fact that your manager is looking to change your role from what was agreed, you have spoken to an employment lawyer and are looking into ground for constructive dismissal.

Your email to HR will shit them up far more than her email, which will mainly consist of “I want my direct reports under my eye where I can see them, waaaah”.

It may state it in her contract, but for 2 years it has not been enforced. That, in tangent with hiring emails where OP specifically clarified the position is remote and she will be WFH is more than enough to evidence that the remote element was accepted. OP does come to the office “occasionally” for training etc. Occasionally is not everyday. If a contract is not enforced from the start they cannot hire her under false pretences and the choose to enforce it when she lives 5 hours away (and did at time of application). A written contract can usually not be overwritten, but OP has it in writing that it’s remote.

It’s would be a similar scenario if the business was based in Leeds and moved to Glasgow and expected all employees hired in Leeds to commute to Glasgow because their contract says “office”. Op is based 5 hours away, always has been and has worked remotely. They cannot decide to arbitrarily enforce a contract 2 years in.

Like it’s that easy. They’d all leave.

Whoops. Wrong quote.

''@allthemiddlechildrenoftheworld

@Stressedgiraffe "they knew where you lived" but the reverse is also true! you knew where the business was based so why did you apply for a job if the business was based so far away???''

Because the position was advertised and sold at interview as being a remote role. End of story.

It is a shame that the OP did not make sure this was clearly stated in the contract she was issued but I think the company has acted in a shoddy way.

My husband and his contemporaries who are managers in various companies say we are less productive now with WFH , I said doesn't that mean you need to employ more people and they say no the companies are starting to fail and will have to cut jobs and their bosses are reintroducing hybrid working and if possible full time in the office to increase productivity. Our general economy is on the brink of recession for various reasons too. I think we are in a precarious position nationally and globally in terms of standards of living now. I don't think having an economy based on people using transport and coffee shops is right but what do we manufacture and produce now. My children in their 20 s and their friends say it's easier to be at work in person learning from other people and they like the social aspect, they don't want to work and live in the same building all the time.

All the data suggests otherwise - remote working employees are more productive. The briefest of Googles confirms this. Obviously manufacturing workers etc have to work on site and can't work remotely, so WFH is really only for knowledge workers anyway.

The economy is in a total mess but it's nothing to do with WFH and everything to do with the absolute shower we've got running the country.

Is it more about pushing you out because she wants her own person in? Lots of this going around.