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.

There is possibly an element of boards being driven by other factors like investment in city centre property

Not sure why they'd care unless the investors are clients of theirs. That could be a factor for some big professional services companies/firms.

Not Boots or the tech companies though. It's simple micromanagement and trying to retain male white with a housewife at home privilege.

What? How do you think people make career plans then? Pay, working conditions, term time working and childcare definitely does come into it.

Working from home is awful for graduates and juniors. They engage less, learn less and benefit less. It really only suits mid to higher level staff because they don’t have to deal with as many people or interruptions.

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.

Not much of a loss for teaching in that case, then. Your contempt for other people is shining through all your posts. There are poor employees, but in companies that treat people well they are a small minority in my experience of both wfh and FT office work.

Total generalisation that leaves out all the graduates and juniors who've been excluded by requirements to work in person. Do you think no new grad lives a long way from the best job markets? Or has caring responsibilities, a disability that makes being physically present in a workplace a problem?

I didn’t know that. I’ve long preferred Superdrug as Superdrug’s own-brand products are not tested on animals. Now I won’t use tax-dodging Boots even as an alternative.

That's not an argument. We have proven that we can be fully remote. We are hybrid at the moment. And I would never go back to going into the office ft.

I don't drive and I am disabled. Wfh has helped me get an actual career, not a job. Something I would have never been able to achieve needing to leave the house everyday.

I don't know why you're scoffing. I have one of the jobs I listed, and it is a valid factor. While 'youngsters' might not have picked up on it I can assure you that those of us qualified in those jobs are advising interested school kids to factor hours and working conditions into their decisions. Medicine is not well-rewarded, hence all the doctors strikes. Are you telling me some people don't choose teaching because of the holidays, or because it's easier for childcare? Of course some do, it is a factor. No mass exodus for those reasons I assume - some disadvantages to being off all of July, some major advantages.

Of course we should make essential public sector jobs more attractive. Any suggestions how? Certainly won't be money, judging by recent pay offers.

Well they are closing branches no one wants to work in pharmacy anymore who would want to . They are probably maki ng people go back in as it saves making people redundant as they leave.

Sorry but I didn’t get that.

Because you can’t just “take” these jobs. You will still need to apply and be the best candidate in order to get such a job, even if they are “bullshit” jobs, as you so disparagingly put it.

Care work is sadly undervalued, but you can’t deny that many unskilled people go into such jobs - precisely because it’s underpaid, and because it’s sometimes unpleasant work with unsociable hours. Care work often involves weekend work and night shifts. Why haven’t care workers all been beating down the door to get an admin job before now? For that matter, how come bars and restaurants have any staff at all, when 9 - 5 office work would always have been more flexible and better paid, long before lockdown?

You can criticise office jobs all you want, but there’s a reason unskilled workers haven’t been “taking” them in droves for years before WFH went mainstream. Spoiler alert: It’s not because these jobs used to require five days in the office.

Maybe they have been given a financial incentive by government to get workers back in the office ? Could be a drive to get money back in the economy - workers spending on lunches etc ?

It's also not an argument because we know the UK had a problem with workforce retention of women with caring responsibilities at this time.

This.

I work for an American company and they seem to want an office based culture.

We've gone from 2 to 3 to 4 days in the office in a very short window (4 months) and they’re acting like they’re doing us a favour letting us do 1 day from home.

They haven’t given any justification other than throwing a load of buzz words like collaborative, vibrant, thriving etc etc etc

They may well be investors themselves or have investors who are, lots of pensions are invested in that kind of property as well, its a whole house of cards they need to keep going.

My role has always been working from home full
time, many years before covid. The industry is very high pressured and we work across multiple countries/time zones. It is entirely possible to be productive whilst WFH, but ideally I would love a day in an office each week. I rarely meet my term or clients, unless there’s a F2F meeting which is rare.

I would say that demanding all staff are in the office full time isn’t necessary and imo a mistake. 3 days per week is more than enough, with the right structure and organisation.

Ridiculous idea. Children wouldn’t have local friends and might have a long tiring journey home from school. And what happens if you leave that workplace?

Not whilst working but you save the commuting time which you can then spend with children instead

I do less work at work as I get interrupted regularly or stopped in corridors for chats etc. I also don’t feel guilty about doing less work. At home I don’t get constant in person interruptions (Teams is easier to ignore if you are in the middle of something for a start) and am more inclined to do more work as I don’t want people thinking I’m a slacker. I also use my morning and afternoon breaks to do the school run, and my lunch to do a workout. My DS will happily play toys or watch telly for an hour with a drink and snack whilst I’m finishing off my working day.
If I was on site full time I’d be royally fucked as I don’t have family that can help, they don’t do after school club here and all the child minders are fully booked with waiting lists. When I need to go on site for the day I’ll make my DH take the day off (his job is site based and 30 odd miles away).
This will adversely affect more women than men as women are still likely to be the default parent for childcare / illness and school runs.

Indeed. I don't live in the UK and I know only one person who WFH. I'm sure it's more common in cities, but most people here still go into their workplace to work. I wouldn't be surprised that in the future full time WFH is deemed to have been a big mistake.

Boots customer service is truly diabolical these days, so right now I wouldn't give a toss if every crappy employee in the whole group lost their job. Its just...dire.

If so many people were more productive at home, if their standard of work was better, if they were engaging with their colleagues consistently and frequently. These mandates wouldn't exist, they wouldn't be calling the workforce back. despite what statistics say

! refuse to pick up teams calls about pointless stuff, call/email me, not every problem needs to be a teams call, you don't always need to have to share your screen. The amount of times I am put on mute due to children/animals/someone at the door is insane, not to mention when i give a direction, and they have to call me on teams to clarify!!

this wont be a popular opinion but i think WFH is making people unable to think for themselves, trust their gut and therefore, making them lazy.

In my industry, its a man problem. not woman

Boots gender pay gap was at a mean of 18.2% in 2022, which is where it has been stuck for two years (don't be fooled by it's median pay gap), and it's mean bonus pay gap is a whopping 72.3%.

In 2022, Boots stated it would do this to reduce it's pay gap 'We’ll be adopting hybrid working practices where roles allow, to enable team members to work in the way that's best for them and to support a better work / life balance'. (Boots Management Services Limited Gender Pay Gap Report as at April 2021 (boots-uk.com)

Office based roles can easily be done from home, so this is a lie. Does Boots think women are idiots?

[email protected]

Be lovely for Boots to wake up to emails from their 80% female customer base, on Monday morning asking them why they lied in their 2022 gender pay gap report.

And finally:

How Remote Work Empowers Women And Fights “Greedy Work” (forbes.com)

I think your logic is very flawed. All employers generally want to make their jobs as attractive as possible to attract best candidates, who would think, ah I better make an arbitrary rule so that my jobs aren’t looking better than others, wouldn’t want to attract too many employees 🤣