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.

It was the OP I was asking as they seem sure that it’s WFH that’s contributed to the profit gain.

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?

There is deep inequality at the root anyway. The idea that wfh benefits women only irritates me. Men need to step up with childcare and that’s the issue. Yet so many men and women accept that this is fine. It makes me angry.

Another one who doesn’t think this is a woman issue. I can’t wfh (more than occasionally). My DH is able to wfh most days, as such he does the school runs (before and after school club). In a functioning 2 parent household, it should affect people equally, if it doesn’t, then it is a marital problem.

Not at all.

What I did say was it didnt detract from it.

Ergo there is zero correlation between how successful a company is and how many days its workforce spend in a designated building.

We're supposed to be back in the office 40% of the time. We've ignored it, with our manager's blessing. If we were forced back into the office, I'd go back to pre-Covid ways of working, stop doing stuff over the phone (not feasible in an open-plan building anyway) and have F2F appointments with clients out in the community instead.

My productivity would fall by 50% (it more than doubled during Covid), I'd spend more time driving from place to place than actually working (large rural patch), there wouldn't be any gains from being in the office because the 2 full-timers out of the 6 of us are entirely community based, one is "officially" based at a different office, and the third delivers training to other teams for approx 50% of their time.

Which is precisely why our senior manager is ignoring the 40% directive.

It’s happening in many companies, OP. My DH is disappointed because his immediate boss was talking yesterday about adding at least one extra day in the office, despite the fact that their group has been performing brilliantly on their current hybrid schedule. No one’s slacking at all.

But, I think it’s to do with empty office space as posters upthread have said. Why pay for office space that’s only being used 2-3 days a week? It’s frustrating though as wfh or on a hybrid schedule has been life/changing for so many people.

It's a parent issue not a woman issue, what would help is schools to have wrap around and to allow people to apply for schools near to work if they commute.

Yes and a lot of us were poorer for it - less quality time with family, more £ on wraparound care, stress and always rushing.

Also aside from the obvious impact that this has (disproportionately) on women, there’s also those who are ND and focus better at home to avoid burnout, those who are caregivers who have caring responsibilities they have to fit in around work, parents (both women and men) who aren’t able to use or afford wrap around childcare, and junior colleagues who don’t get paid enough (especially now with COL increasing) to cover the increase in fuel costs or public transport that this is going to cause.

The world has changed a lot in 4 years, but it seems like they don’t want to. This is why we’re angry.

My DH is the default parent. Last 2 years I’ve been in a national role and away from home at least 50% of the time. Was in the NHS during Covid, working 16 hours a day 7 days a week on site to make sure people were safe. Now I’m away 3-4 days a week. He has WFH for years. Still doesn’t do housework during the day (washing goes in when he’s cooking dinner and out at bedtime).

Ok, I'll bite. It isn't your employers job to make your life 'a little bit easier' (I am not, for clarification, saying appropriate and mandated workplace adjustments shouldn't be in place). How would a megalith such as the NHS or civil service achieve that for thousands of employees.
Yes, wfh is a bonus for everyone, but it isn't a right.

I work in HE, and if they tried this now , there would be mass resignations.

Why ? two reasons - 1) People have built lives that incorporate hybrid working. They have seen the benefits to their wellbeing. In my case on my wfh day I get back 2.5hrs normally spent commuting. 2) Presenteism, which is all the ' get back to the office' thing is all about, is a negative, untrustworthy policy. As in this Boots thing, there are no evidence based reasons, it is justified by using words like collaboration and team spirit . What they really want is to keep a better eye on you. Nobody would want to work in that environment.

People will walk rather than go back to the office 5 days a week, I know I would, and there are smarter places that would still offer hybrid working.

I think these companies are assuming they have more power than they actually have in this scenario.

Most of those could be dealt with by a flexible working request.

Is shrinking office size that unreasonable, or other creative ideas to pool resources between companies? That's what BP were busy doing about a decade ago, along with providing very high quality hybrid meeting rooms for a combination of in person and remote attendees in their offices. A lot of people hate hybrid meetings, but that's almost certainly because they're subjected a ad-hoc attempts using inappropriate facilities or crap equipment.

Someone else mentioned less interaction between colleagues, that's a culture thing. My team is fully remote but very chatty and more than enough meetings 🤣 What companies are finding, in my opinion, is that it's not magic, it doesn't happen organically because people aren't used to it and the challenges are different. They need to understand the challenges and tackle them

But if I was in the office then I’d be leaving home at 7 and getting home at 6.
wfh I can drop him off school. Start work at 9 and pick him up by 5ish. So it’s 2hours extra I spend with him or doing whatever I want rather than commuting

Right, and Boots have limited this further though. There are also a good few examples of people putting (considerate, and justified) requests in and having them rejected.

The only other option is reducing hours, which may not be financially viable for a lot of us considering how much we’re paid (or not).

I am pretty sure they mean spending the time with their son INSTEAD of using that time to commute.

Everyone claims to be more productive when WFH but the reality is the vast majority of individuals are not, coupled with the fact that collaboration and team work suffers hugely, regardless of what employees claim.

I work in consulting and the number of companies wanting help to recover their productivity losses since WFH became such a 'thing' is incredible.

We see it across industries and all over the world; WFH is not good for output.

Yes there are some 'soft' benefits in terms of incentivising high value employees and retention rates, etc. but for the majority of businesses it's detrimental.

Trying to portray this as an attack on women is, frankly, a bit pathetic.

The only green shoot here is that from April the onus will be on the employer to prove why they cant accommodate a flexible working request rather than on the employee to prove why they need it.

And an answer of "because we'd have to do it for everyone" won't be allowed to stand, as everyones circumstances need to be taken in isolation

Fully WFH is detrimental in most jobs for most people as far as actual work is concerned. Staff end up isolated, disengaged and unmotivated. People often work in unsuitable surroundings at home without proper equipment - dining chairs, no desk, off tiny laptops instead of full size screens. Distractions like pets, undone household chores and children - how on earth are people working at reasonable capacity with kids around for some or even all of the time?

There is reduced collaboration too, and it is (let’s face it) a lazy bastard’s charter. How often do you call someone (always the same someones) who is green on teams and there’s no reply?

Hybrid is a great balance - around 40% in office is ideal to foster collaboration and engagement, and complex work can be focussed on in peace at home (if you get peace at home).

It will be ruined though. Those who started bleating as soon as asked to return to office a percentage of their working week will ruin it for everyone. You know who they are - all have sudden impediments to coming in two days a week when they managed five a couple of years ago. They have anxiety, have one-legged grannies with dementia requiring care, neurodiverse kids, neurodiverse themselves (recent diagnosis via internet of course) hampering their ardent desire “to come in just like everyone else, it’s not that I don’t WANT to come to the office…..” It’s also hard to manage - folks on my office complain about those who make excuses/just don’t come in. Managers have to discuss this with complainants and perpetrators, and rnd up policing attendance.

Anyway, I digress. People are right. The Boots CEO probably does think some staff are skiving at home and want bums on seats to ensure they get value for money. They will be right in a small but significant number of cases. It’s not fair, but not really surprising.

Again, for the avoidance of doubt.

This debate is around hybrid working

Office days have value, but why do we need five?

With my career WFH is very rare. I need to be physically in my work place to do the job. There are a few jobs the allow me to WFH and I did do this for while and I agree that work life balance is much better and managing other commitments is easier but I felt isolated and needed to get out the house. I was sick of looking at my own home and only seeing DH daily. My job was always long days and I hated 5 day weeks but now I do 4 long days and get an extra day off.

I have noticed with friends that wfh they are now starting to spend more time in the work place but with flexitime. Is this something that has been mentioned? This allows them to negotiate childcare etc with partners. I don't think going back to an office environment is going backwards but the traditional 9-5 is. Companies need to be more flexible with days worked or times worked. Either allowing people to do condensed days with longer shifts to allow an extra day off or flexible time so they have to be at the office between certain times and can then make up the hours outwith that eg 2 long days and 3 short or whatever works.

Likely with a company like boots they are maybe trying to ensure all jobs are equal, why should office staff get to stay home when customer facing positions needs to be in the office/store/pharmacy.

@redalex261 totally agree with your post!

And just to be clear - this is what Boots staff have been relatively happy with, and would prefer to keep.

We just want some degree of flexibility to allow us to have the best work/life balance we can whilst doing our jobs well and in a happy environment. 5 days a week in the office is not that.