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.

But do you actually think we can oblige employers to try and get remote/hybrid staff to be in the office more, in the hope that employers in completely different sectors can get the staff they need without having to pay more?

This has come up a few times, and I just wonder how on earth do people think it would work?

But what about when no one wants to do the essential f2f jobs?

Let it happen. Then those are interested in the roles will apply and changes will be made for alternatives.

You are assuming that if a F2F employee leaves, they will easily get a WFH job. They are in for a rude awakening when they find out what competition for jobs looks like in the private sector!

I'm community NHS. I work with a lot of nurses. Of all of them, I can think of one who runs her life around being in the office 9-5 unless she's out on visits because that suits her way of working.

Most of the others work in a similar way I do - if we're out seeing patients we'll work in and out of the nearest available office base, but if we're slogging through a day of writing up discharge reports - we'd much rather do that WFH in comfy slippers with less distractions (especially since our shared office has the printer for the building so people are in and out constantly). We all have work mobile phones so clients can contact us easily, and Teams so colleagues can get hold of us and with the way my profession is organised - I wouldn't ever even pre-covid have been consistently working out of an office with my professional colleagues anyway - we're set up with a one clinician per local area kind of system.

It doesn't suit everyone - and there are a few people who start, use the post as their first step on the career ladder and move on quite quickly - but it suits a lot of us who enjoy working that way. It takes effort to make sure people are still feeling part of the team - we have a lot of discussion and "I'm seeing this chap and I know it's a condition you were interested in if you want to come along as well" type arranging, and there are days where people are more likely to be in offices to cross over with colleagues, but it's still a very close knit team considering the huge geographical area we cover. We also have recruitment issues in the career in general and have a fair few colleagues with insane commutes so on a day they'd just be sat in the office doing admin - WFH suits them. Seems to suit the Trust as well as they're condensing down buildings to save costs.

As for the domestic stuff - because I'm often in and out during the day, and can be on quite late evening visits - DH does the laundry, school runs and shopping.

The one bit of the move to WFH that does piss me off is the assumption that was made (particularly during lockdown) that everyone was set up at home in a way where they could decamp into a quiet spare room, with decent wifi and an obligingly situated desk and that they had kids who would dutifully sit at the dining table doing their own school work with minimal supervision... and that during that period a lot of stress and burden did fall on me as the mother - and we were in a very cramped house without a spare room so I was juggling a uni degree, the kids home school work and trying to keep things quiet while DH was wittering on about last night's telly on a Teams chat. Once I got this post - we made a point of moving to a house where both me and DH have spaces we can WFH undisturbed if required and the kids are that bit older for the hour they're home after school while I'm still working. Couldn't do it in our old long-since outgrown house this way and I think employers embracing hybrid/remote working do need to make sure that they're not making assumptions about employee's domestic arrangements and that there are decent office spaces available for those who would prefer to work in the traditional 9-5 in the office manner.

Exactly. It’s like saying it’s not fair that bus drivers, painters and decorators, chefs, taxi drivers aren’t able to work from home. It’s a ridiculous argument.

is that how it works? We will choose jobs that are wfh rather than f2f even if we have no interest in them ? Do you think a doctor would swap themselves with an IT technician just because the latter one can wfh? Very much doubt it

Not everyone likes wfh, I put up with it for about 5 weeks and 4 of that was my notice, I was stuck in our spare room which meant I couldn't use it for my own stuff, it was one of the sadder episodes of my life.

No doubt there need to be changed for essential jobs in terms of both pay and conditions. I don’t doubt that for a moment.

But I don’t think sour grapes is at all helpful - making others who could or even will do their jobs better wfh go into offices every day , wasting time and money, wont help those in necessarily f2f jobs.

What’s needed is much higher public sector pay and recruitment drives to fill in the numbers (once pay and conditions are improved)

Not commuting means you pick up from wrap around/ school earlier. That you can do school drop offs etc. That means more time with your children, whilst still working full hours. The removal of the commute is a big time saver for many people..

That’s working on your assumption that everyone in a f2f role is too thick to do any other job though (“teachers only teach because they couldn’t get their 1st/2nd/3rd choice career”). I know plenty of people who have left teaching and gone into wfh jobs, because they have qualifications and skills and stuff like that.

And a big money saver I remember paying more in wraparound childcare than my rent and panicking because I knew I couldn't afford 6 weeks holidays worth of full time childcare

I know someone who was able to afford a second home with the money they saved on commuting and wraparound care once they started WFH.

And how do the employee contributions compare?

I know plenty of people who have left teaching and gone into wfh jobs, because they have qualifications and skills and stuff like that.

And they are right to do that. WFH jobs aren’t that easy to find. There is a lot of competition and no stability. If they are able to find a WFH job and are willing to give up the long holidays, then of course they should do them. Nobody should be miserable for thirty/forty years if there is an alternative.

So what's the option? If you wouldn't " tolerate" it and he refused to do it then you have to leave him. However you then stuck with working, having to find childcare and still do the housework yourself.
Hardly ideal

I just suspect that it might be a consideration. Much like the concerns that WFH has impacted public transport, and coffee shops. It's having an impact on the economy, and yes I suspect it's on a radar somewhere. I don't know how it would work, I would hope increased pay but as I've said I don't see it happening for the specific roles that are a concern (healthcare and education). And btw, I'm a hybrid worker so this isn't sour grapes. It's more a concern from what I see around me on my on-site days.

If you haven't got a commute or children at home, I had neither, it is more expensive to wfh as you have to use your heating and also lose proper use of a room so there will be plenty to do jobs out of the home, MN is skewed because a lot have DC as shown by these threads

What do you suggest is done about the retention/recruitment crisis in teaching then? Or do you think classes of 60 taught by non-subject specialists are no problem?

They certainly aren't high enough to make the (optional) pension scheme worse than mine, if that's what you're getting at.

Glad you're not trying to pursue the sick leave point now, at least.

And making those that are wfh in another sector go back to the office 5 days a week will solve that problem?

So you think rather than making essential jobs more attractive, we should make “non-essential” jobs less attractive to counteract this?! Bizarre logic.

But the how is what's important here.

I understand the argument that it would be convenient for some sectors if those who are remote working now could instead be obliged to be office based. Lots of people and organisations would like it if we could wave a magic wand and reverse the big structural changes of the 2020s. That part is a given.

It's also clearly very much on the radar already, given that the Tories have spent a lot of time bleating about it because of their corporate donors despite the fact that they enforced hybrid working as a cost cutting measure in a lot of public sector jobs just a few years back, to save on office costs.

But none of this means it's something that could actually happen.

Critical illness cover is not the same as sick pay. It covers a limited range of illnesses, most of which are life limiting.

Oh no, absolutely not! I don’t agree with or even understand that argument at all. I think I said so earlier - that just because some jobs can’t work from home, it makes absolutely no sense to prevent anyone else having those benefits. And I agree with everyone who has said that sour grapes is not helpful either.

What I am objecting to is the “well if you don’t like working f2f then do something else” argument, with the added implication from some that anyone in a f2f role is actually incapable of doing anything else: that it’s okay for f2f roles to have poor working conditions, because there will always be people who can’t do anything else to fill those roles. These jobs still need doing, and surely the answer is to make them more attractive, rather than to stop everyone else from having better working conditions.

Thanks for the explanation

Some of the wfh call centre jobs are not that attractive or highly paid, most people can do them, not all wfh are higher up jobs, mine was just lab admin.