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.

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?

And getting people work in offices instead of from home will solve this how exactly?

The teaching system is already broken.

See my post above.

I don’t believe @Bringtheweatherwithyou is saying that at all. S/he is simply pointing out that talk of “taking” a job in a different sector where you can WFH is, at best, a little basic. It’s all very well saying you’ll take such a job, but someone has to want to offer it to you - and while of course no one is suggesting teachers are “too thick” to do anything else, it’s a fact of life that transferable skills are undervalued by most employers. A former maths teacher might be able to bring a lot to a role in the finance industry, but if they’re up against a candidate with ten years of experience, the likelihood is they’ll lose out.

@Bringtheweatherwithyou literally said in an earlier post that teachers only teach because they aren’t bright enough for their 1st/2nd/3rd choice of career.

@AgainYes

Shame so many men aren’t doing the school runs. That could help with things. Why is it women who are assumed to be doing it?

Has anyone ever heard a man eulogise about wfh as he can ‘pop a load of laundry in’ between meetings?

This is true. But also this stupid trope about “popping laundry on” equating to stealing time from your employer” is so sexist and so misleading.

For decades men have incorporated various forms of bunking off into the infrastructure of their work and passed it off as “networking”. Afternoons on the golf course or drinking sessions with the sales team. Most of this is far more expensive and wastes far more time than the notional “popping on laundry”. Even the school run is more efficient than a day on the golf course.

In my experience when working women have to work around the restrictions school pickups and childcare impose on them they become far more focused and get far more done, regardless of where they are, than a bloke who can stay until 7pm being seen to be in the office but spending the last two hours of the working day pissing about on the internet. If spending two minutes emptying the washing machine really is theft of the employer’s time then a long liquid lunch is hardly an efficiency.

The anti wfh rhetoric is largely resentment by men of long overdue changes that make it easier for women to structure their lives and most of the complaints about it just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Very true. There was a post on here a couple of months back from someone who recruited for call centre roles, who explained that the offer of remote working is the only way they can get those jobs filled. Obviously we all know those roles don't pay that much and have long had high turnover, even when we didn't have the same tight labour market as we do now. Most people who dislike wfh customer service staff aren't willing to pay more to cover the additional costs of getting staff into the office, so I could well believe her when she said there was nothing else she could really do.

Or that shops should have to stay open as long as restaurants, because it’s unfair that checkout staff get to go home earlier than waiters. And then the restaurants have to stay open as late as the pubs because it would be unfair to bar staff…

Has anyone on this thread actually said “I can’t work from home so I think no-one else should be allowed to either because it’s not fair”?

She said that some teachers don’t seem to have a great interest in or passion for the job, and hypothesised it might be because they couldn’t get into the career they would have preferred. That’s a long way from saying all teachers are too thick to do anything else.

No - but more than one person has suggested WFH should be limited to make those jobs less tempting to people who do less flexible jobs.

To be fair, when I said she assumed everyone in a f2f role was too thick to do anything else, she didn’t deny it…

Just about all the teachers I know are unhappy in the job but I can only think of two or three who have little passion for or interest in the job - in fact the ones with no passion for the job allow the problems with teaching to bother them the least, because they don’t particularly care about the job so it doesn’t get to them.

Yeah, that just makes no sense at all. But neither does saying that wfh jobs are so hard to get that we don’t need to improve working conditions for f2f roles because there will always be people who can’t get wfh jobs to do them.

I used to work for Boots at the head office. I did love my time there pee covid. However during covid we worked so hard to keep the business a float whilst stores were closed and also home schooling our children.

we did our jobs we were paid to do but got NOT one ounce of recognition for keeping the business going (whilst many of my colleges were furloughed).

in fact the SLT told us that we should send our children to school during Covid as we could ‘claim’ we were key workers (I won’t say what my role is but it was not a key worker role)

I left soon after covid having worked there for eight years as the senior management are awful.

get out whilst you can - you will
also realise the grass is definitely greener as Boots’ wages are very low compared to other roles outside of boots (that are the same).

What about the people who have been recruited over the last 2/3/4 years? They have agreed to hybrid working (3 days in the office which then changed to 3 set days in the office) now they will have to be in 5 days

I really hope so, but I suspect that can be achieved with teams meeting up in the office 2 or 3 days a week, we go in Monday and Wednesday as a rule, other teams choose different days to share the space.

I think that this is common across the board but most wfhers are not as honest as you!

@Hoistupthemainsail I am low paid. Wfh meant I could access senior managers more easily. What it did stop was young employees often already paid more than me, coming for help with thi9ngs their manager should be helping them with. I am not paid to train employees. And no one ever acknowledged the time it took as another 22 year old who had no clue what they were doing popped in with can I just ask you...
I hate the informal training like this because it is managers not doing their job.

Yes, a loooot of employers were having their cake and eating it with the expectation that more experienced staff train up new starters, without a decrease in workload or increase in pay to reflect that.

To be fair, when I said she assumed everyone in a f2f role was too thick to do anything else, she didn’t deny it…

Maybe because I don’t have the time or inclination to argue with people who twist words to suit their own narrative. Maybe I simply don’t think you are worth replying to unless I am very very bored and taking a break from cleaning my bins.

I work more from home and work longer four out of five days because I really want to keep my job. I don’t talk about it or complain about it. I don’t moan that my electricity bills are higher. I don’t complain that I am not running out to Starbucks with a colleague every morning or taking extended lunch breaks or stopping by colleague’s desks for numerous chats throughout the day.

I can see why people miss the social side of work. For me WFH full time works. If it didn’t, I have the option of working in the office. In the office there is a possibility of promotion and more money but it’s a trade off. I accept I can’t have both.

If I hated my job I’d leave. My job is essential but having an essential job in the public service pays peanuts. I’d like it more if it paid more but if money was my motivation I I’d go back to the private sector.

Whinging about it and doing nothing to change personal circumstances is a waste of time.

My this thread has moved fast!

Just so I'm clear,

My wanting to work through a to do list and virtual meetings from my home as opposed to the office two days a week is responsible for the teaching retention crisis.

I should therefore go into the office on these days for no other reason other than...checks notes...its not fair.

Right, got it.

Excellent summary 🤣

*Tbh on my work from home days I'm much lazier and my friends agree they are too. So it's probably fair enough really.

I think that this is common across the board but most wfhers are not as honest as you!*

Well I can't speak for most Wfhers like you seem to be able to, @WaterWeasel but I get much more done WFH . Everyone knows you can be just as lazy in an office.

Everyone knows you can be just as lazy in an office

I don't agree. It's much harder to be a lazy waster in an office but obviously not impossible - sadly I work with such a person so I am well aware it happens.

It’s based upon direct feedback of juniors I manage and the poor impact WFH has had on their own mental health and ability to progress. All juniors I manage live in tiny flats in London where the only option is to work, live and sleep in their bedrooms. It’s grim. Your opinion just doesn’t represent my industry at all.