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?

Why would the contract have very little bearing? Genuine question

What does your contract say??

You'd be amazed at how well I do my job, even though none of my team nor any colleagues with whom I work directly are in the same office

Okay, that's great. But loads of people take advantage of working from home and are less productive. I know SO many people who brag about how little they do WFH, and how they can 'get away' with going to the gym etc during the working day! Have you seen all the posts on mumsnet about looking after babies/toddlers while 'WFH'?!

It’s in the very first post!

Your attitude is quite behind the times @roses321

They would have to change her contract in writing. Otherwise they have an HMRC issue

Your attitude is quite behind the times @roses321

I disagree. I think she's spot on about entitlement. Here is the OP, with a contract that says she needs to work in the office, moaning that she has to go into the office once a month!!!

They sound generous if they are willing to compromise on once a month, especially as you do not have a WFH contract.
Why would you have to stay in a hotel for two nights, surely you'd travel down the day before, stay overnight and once you finish you'd return home that night.

I was about to say YABU but then I saw you live 5 hours away. Did they say why you need to be sat at a desk in an office 5 hours away when you could be doing the same work at home?

But it's her choice to live 5 hours away when she knows she has a job contract that requires her to work in an office...

But she’s managed to do the job from home for the last 2 years without issue so why should she?

Hi OP,

So sorry you're going through this. It must be causing you a lot of anxiety.

I've managed global teams for global companies before and agree, you are hardly ever physically next to a colleague or team member. It's just not part of the culture.

As you applied for a remote role and have the JD, and emails to prove that was the basis the role was awarded, I'd start with HR and say you've only just noticed an error in your contract as this new requirement has been mooted.

The fact they are paying your travel already, too, indicates they consider you have a mobile/remote role.

I'd contact HR first thing.

Very good luck to you.

My lot are getting a bit like this. Pre-pandemic we were all in the office full time, for the most part, with occasional flexibility to work at home. Fine.

Then the pandemic came and they sent everyone home during the lockdowns - fine.

Did a trial phase for hybrid working - fine.

Hired people for particular niche expertise from all over the country and told them they could work remotely - fine.

Then the decree came from on high (well, central government) that costs had to be reduced - fine, although we moved offices to somewhere only about 30% of the capacity of the previous building, it worked OK.

Then a further decree that all shall be in x days a week - and now people are practically fighting over desks because there's not enough room. Not fine: bloody stupid.

Edited to add: worth querying with your HR, OP, particularly given what they said at the time they hired you. Good luck.

Why do people who've chosen to do jobs that have to be done in person imagine their terms and conditions are relevant to jobs that can be done remotely? I can only dream of a pension scheme like teachers have access to, but I'd never delude myself that it's relevant.

To those who are blaming the OP for taking the job while living 5 hours away : well, equally her employer also knew full well they were hiring someone who did not live within commuting distance. So it works both ways.

The OP has been doing her work remotely for 2 years without any issues and this is her established pattern of work. It seems silly to change that just because some managers still can't move past Presenteeism...It is daft to expect someone to do a 5 hour commute regularly if they can do their job from home.

Maybe, but how are those other people relevant for this specific situation?

BTW, my friend brags about being able to get away with going to the gym while working at his workplace (and it isn't part of his job).

It isn't actually anything to do with people skiving. You can spot and manage that remotely just as well as in the office. Certain tasks however really work much better in person; for example brainstorming activities, team building events, process redefinition between departments, complex M&A discussion, certain new large contract sales discussions and complex planning. Yes, online drawing products and breakout rooms work a bit if everyone is online, but they take about twice as long to get to the same objectives. Giving special leeway means you have an in-person event with a couple missing (saying they can't hear X at the back while online with camera off etc), who then say they didn't agree... recipe for distaster actually.

I won't go into the office every day, I don't even expect my team in once per month. I ask each of them to come in for a quarterly session and to delay certain cross-team change discussions for that day. We swap days if someone can't make a particular date, wherever possible. And I DO expect any one of them to turn up with a week or more notice, if I say it's needed for a particular reason. I wouldn't abuse that for unnecessary crap, so I sympathise if people have a manager who does, but some interactions really do benefit from being in person.

Where I work on a contract our desk booking system recently broke for almost a month. People whom the desk app did work for were having to ask colleagues to book desks for them as a favour. And naturally everyone wants to be in every day but Monday or Friday. Similar in a corporate company, horrendously packed desks every day, you couldn’t get soft seating/booths as they were always busy. People were being irritated by others being on teams calls. This was in the office they’d always worked in, pre covid.

I know the sort; they're the same kind of people who do f* all when they're in the office.
My point is, good people work well wherever. Lazy people are lazy wherever. They don't suddenly transform from hugely competent to useless just by working from home, and vice versa.

You don’t have a wfh contract that was a risk you took when you got the job.

Sorry misread. 2 years is still considered for constructive dismissal though so still a strong case especially having read the updates remain chain etc

Exactly this. Someone said upthread :

Many companies (including civil service) are pushing towards more office bases as they are realising that it’s more beneficial on the whole (clearly not every role but on the whole)

Just to be clear, the civil service have not been able to provide any evidence that it’s more “beneficial on the whole” and it’s more likely being done to appease landlords and daily mail readers who love to bash civil servants.

Do something about the below inflation wages and abysmal public transport before dragging people back into the office unnecessarily.

There’s pp who have stated they went into early retirement due to enforced hybrid /move away from remote but yet the government still claims it’s trying to encourage early retirees back into the workforce. It’s ridiculous.

Op, since your job was advertised as remote and you have caring responsibilities related to a disabled partner I think you have a strong case.

To those who are blaming the OP for taking the job while living 5 hours away : well, equally her employer also knew full well they were hiring someone who did not live within commuting distance. So it works both ways.

@Startingagainandagain But how the employee gets to the job is not the employers problem. They don't need to care how long it takes you, that's on you when you apply for the job.

exactly this.
'I could only dream of being paid the same wage as a premier league footballer'
so??? Start kicking the ball then!

The equivalent 'teacher' example, @surreygirl1987, would be you applying to TEFL to Chinese students online, doing so successfully for 3 years, and then being asked to move to China. I'm sure you'd think that's completely fair? Or applying to work as a teacher in 1 school and then being told actually you have to go and tutor all your students in their homes, individually?

OP applied for a remote job, confirmed with HR the job was remote, and successfully did the job remotely for years. The fact your completely different job is not remote is irrelevant. Also, WFH doesn't have to be 'only a dream' for you, you could leave teaching and get another job if you're so jealous...

To those who are blaming the OP for taking the job while living 5 hours away : well, equally her employer also knew full well they were hiring someone who did not live within commuting distance. So it works both ways.

It doesn't work both ways.

It's the employees responsibility to get themselves to work everyday. That means living within commuting distance and being able to afford fuel or fares.

It's not the employers' place to dictate that you can only work in X office if you live within Y distance.