To think that Boots move to 5 days a week is a step back for workplace equality

[Vistada]

Boots HQ, a predominantly female workforce - has been told they are to be back in the office five days a week from September with no debate and no real solid reasoning (in my view)

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/boots-to-end-hybrid-working-for-office-workers/

I think the move to hybrid working is amazing for everyone, not just women, in terms of helping to achieve the work/life/parenting balance that has eluded us for so long, but we can't deny women shoulder this juggling act more.

I think this move, and any move back to 5 days in the office (where its really not needed) is a huge step back for workplace equality - and for a male CEO to enforce this just shows how out of touch he is.

I'm not saying I think they are right but I've been saying for years that home, hybrid working was never going to last, there are too many vested interests who need people working in the cities on a daily basis, too much investment and potential loss of profits when staff stay home.

People don't like it, I don't like it but in a few years I reckon we'll all pretty much be back in the office most of the time with only a little increase flexibility on working from home some days.

The level of faith you show that most jobs are magically going to go back into offices is almost touching.

..and they say WFH gives a better work/life balance 😅

I love the idea that youngsters who once aspired to be doctors are now saying “Well, I did consider training for seven years to become a doctor and to save lives, but now that I know an accounts clerk doesn’t have to commute on a Friday, I’ll do that instead”.

Jobs like those you referred to have never been flexible by their nature, and are also largely vocational (and, in the case of medicine, very well rewarded). I honestly don’t believe the majority of people who’ve trained to teach, for example, have done so thinking “Well, I’m not that fussed either way, but the hours wouldn’t be any better working as an office manager, so I thought I may as well get my PCGE”. If the only reason anyone went into teaching was because they’d be no better off in an “office job” (a bizarrely broad catch-all term), how come there hasn’t been a mass exodus from the profession based on the financial disadvantage of taking your holidays in July?

In any case, the idea that we should make conditions in other jobs worse to encourage people into medicine, dentistry, the police etc. is just ridiculous. Maybe, just maybe, make those jobs more attractive instead?

It is applicable to Boots STORES though, they rely on footfall like any other shop, the people at HQ won"t have a job to go to or WFH if hundreds of stores close because no one goes out any more?

It's true, there's a lack of understanding that a lot of the people who've left the workforce before state retirement age have done so because of health or caring responsibilities. If they're to come back, they're going to need flexible jobs that they can manage around their limitations. Five days a week in a physical workplace isn't going to do it.

But it’s been nearly three years since lockdown was lifted - and most offices had the option to have people back under certain controls long before then. If firms are only insisting on full time in the office now, as with Boots, there is most definitely an argument for Custom and Practice.

When I worked in an office, I got more done coming in early because no one was there and I could get on with things without being interrupted and dealing with the systems being slow because there were a lot of people on it. It was flexible working in the way we could come in between 7 and 10 am and as long as we worked our 7.5 hours it was fine so I would start work around 7:15. By time 10 rolled around I was 75% done with my work for the day. Of course, it went out of the window because one of the managers messed up and didn’t make sure there was cover for someone very important and we had to come in at either 9 am or 10 am. It didn’t help productivity one bit because most of the office arrived before 9 except for 5 people.

This. I agree.

If wfh really did = more productive employees, companies wouldn't be pushing for this.

They'd be thinking "this is great, our employees are super productive AND we don't have have to pay office supplies/electricity bills".

Good companies are thinking that.

@Zanatdy Every job I have had for many years has targets. You can see who is working and who is messing about wherever they are working.
I think poor managers think it is easier to manage poor performance in the office as they equate being busy with being productive.

I wonder if there is a wider issue of equity. Many of Boots employees are in retail and don't have a choice of working from home. Could this be a way to try and reduce the shop floor/head office divide?

if they were taking the piss while WFH that shows more about your management and the ability of your company to identify the shite staff you have employed. Then all because of one person who's performance wasnt nipped in the bud by management you are going to tar everyone with the same brush and give them the same punishment. You can skive off work while physically being in the office too

Because people making career plans simply don’t sit there thinking “Ooh, shall I train as a pharmacist or get a job in administration?” It just isn’t how things work.

I think it’s sad when companies do this , and it impacts women more . I left my job at a school because it was so inflexible when I had a child . Now my job is mostly home based , and we cannot get away with being “lazy” as we have active caseloads that no one else can pick up . I still see my colleagues in person from time to time . This job and this way of working has been a godsend to me , I simply couldn’t have been in paid employment otherwise especially after having two children . I don’t want to send my babies to childcare (no shade to anyone , a personal choice ) and couldn’t afford it full time anyway . My husband also works hybrid and is able to do his share of childcare . Hybrid working has allowed fathers to be more involved and mothers to remain in the workforce . It’s a shame if we go backwards now .

If made permanent WFH could definitely affect jobs.
Why would you go and become a care worker, for example, when you could just take a bullshit data entry or admin for the same salary

I go into the office for blessed relief from the huge amount of work I do when WFH. I do much more at home.

Have you noticed the crisis in recruitment in the care industry?

That's me avoiding shopping there now!

WFH has allowed my employer to grow year after year as they have found flexibility, greater staff retention and unlimited geographical talent pool for recruitment to be hugely beneficial.
My DHs work is the same - he could go into the office but what's the point when he's working with people all over the country and just sitting on Teams all day trying to block out the racket of everyone else also being on Teams all day 😂
We collectively would save around 18-20 hours of commuting time per week if we WFH full time. That's where the childcare element comes in. My mum now collects DS from nursery on my office days as the roads are an unpredictable nightmare at rush hour and he recently got so upset thinking I'd forgotten him 😭 it's crap having to drop him so early in office days too. Some people need mega early starts at 7.30am and those are like hens teeth. Again, not and issue when WFH.

I think it often does work like that. "Shall I work in marketing or shall I become a teacher" could both be career paths you might be considering, and both could be a good fit for your personality.
But if being a teacher involves getting off your arse and putting on a clean jumper and you're the sort of person who wants to take naps and "balance childcare" WFH might swing it for you.

It's pretty obvious remote working has affected some jobs, in that roles needing to be done in a set place at a set time are less attractive due to the lack of flexibility. Whether that goes as far as people choosing a profession on that basis I don't know. It's a bigger decision than someone who needs a job around the kids once the youngest goes to school choosing admin instead of lunchtimes in a cafe.

However, employers aren't going to decide to put an end to remote working just in case it puts people off GP training.

There is possibly an element of boards being driven by other factors like investment in city centre property and so I get people being cynical about these kinds of moves and yes some people will be disadvantaged, especially women. I do think that many people only see what they want to see on this, I agree if it was such a boon for productivity companies would be less concerned about getting workers back in the office.

They haven't increased them very much to cover the cost of living. In fact, people are way worse off in real terms than they were before the 2008 financial crash. The gap between the top paid and bottom paid in most businesses has increased manifold.

Saving people a massive commuting bill was one small way to address that.

But no, employers just can't bring themselves to play fair.

See also post-plague when peasants were paid more due to so many people dying, but the Lords of the Manor did their best to turn back the clock. They didn't like the plebs having rights, and the return to office movement is very similar in my view.