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.

Yes, and many offices don't have flexible enough systems to only have heating and light on in certain rooms.
There is also the need for cloud servers etc. for people working from home.

Exactly. Companies want their staff to think it’s okay to say “Well, this was the contract you signed in 2017, so we’re simply enforcing it” - but there’s a principle known as Custom and Practice of which these companies should be aware. Or more likely, of which they ARE aware, but hope their employees don’t understand.

@Vod But what that means is that jobs that need to be done in specific times and places will have to pay more or go unfilled,

@GwenhwyfarThen pay more for the in person ones.

The jobs I listed are education and healthcare. Public sector, essential workers. Jobs that cannot go unfilled but also realistically will not be paid more due to being government funded.

I have one day a week at home and don’t want any more. However, I would not want to go back to the office full time. Being set up for WFH means I can still work if I’m sick, there’s bad weather or I have to do childcare because my daughter’s nursery is closed. I get an extra 30 minutes for myself per WFH day, and I feel more rested/productive when I go back to the office. My workplace is also very rural, so I prefer being at home anyway due to the better lunch options. I also get to keep my house as warm as I want, keep the windows shut and work in silence if that’s what I want. I think one day a week is perfect.

I doubt C+P would stand up given the motivator was lockdown and companies had no choice.

there haven’t been mass above-inflation pay rises for anyone.

Realistically, jobs that can be done remotely now to the agreement of both employer and employees are not going to move back to the office so the state finds it easier to recruit sufficient teachers without paying them more, though. That is not one of the options that we are choosing from.

Which does in fact mean we pay more or do without, because this is a capitalist society and that's how supply and demand works. Unless you were planning a move to a command economy, which I think is rather unlikely.

I think this comment doesn't really cover the nuances.

Yes, some women with caring responsibilities did work 5 days in an office pre-covid. Others worked part time, and others felt they couldn't work at all.

WFH has given many women (and men) the chance to claw back their lunch hours and commuting time to fit in caring responsibilities and household jobs.

I don't have a baby yet, but our plan was always for me to go back 3 days a week. With WFH 2 days a week, and the other flexibilities my job offers, I would be able to work 32 hours over 4 days (FT is 37hrs). This will make a massive difference to take home pay and also give me more opportunities to carry on progressing my career. Part of this is also based on my husband working from home two days a week and therefore being available for childcare before 9am and after 5pm on those days.

I am sure many others will tell you that life will be a more difficult, or they will have to reduce hours/change jobs if their WFH options were taken away.

Progress in modern society is facilitating a happier and more fulfilling life for everyone. Job flexibility is a key part of this for many people.

Didn't say there had been. I said some organisations will actually be paying their staff more, occasionally even in real terms, but that doesn't mean they'll be able to get them back into the office without coughing up for the privilege.

I think this is an issue with some parents (could be either sex, but mothers do more childcare) expecting the other to be at home for certain tasks. It is a bit of a return to the kitchen for some women.

I live in a country where there is no school on Wednesdays and most of the mothers wfh on Wednesdays. Many of the fathers too, but it's noticeable with mothers, even those with teenagers.

To those who say people can’t be monitored WFH. Surely there’s a job op/business op right there, obviously not too hard core but enough to monitor effectively.

A NDN/friend works for Barclays Bank as a cashier/teller/greeter and wasn’t happy (rightly so) as on her one day wfh she was monitored like a hawk. She’s now happy to be in the office full time.

I’m 52 and me and my 2 best friends of the same age, 2 of us prefer hybrid, ideally 3 or 2 days at home and the other prefers wfh all the time. We’ve been in the office and commuted since we were young so have done all the office culture thing and socialising so it’s not really relevant to us now.

And if slackers, people who use wfh for baby/childcare want to ruin it for most of us, that’s up to them, but impacts on those who do wfh effectively.

Those jobs will need to pay more. Nurses/teachers etc should be paid more anyway but the less attractive jobs like retail, shelf stacking etc should pay better than they do anyway.

Employees refusing a reasonable request to work in the office (in line with their employment terms and conditions) aren’t likely to be employed long term.

I really cannot cry myself to sleep over railways losing profits! The amount of times my trains were cancelled or delayed, yet I had no other option but to use them.

That depends very much on whether the employer has better options available to them. An employer wanting employees to come into the office for a certain wage and an employer being able to enforce that are two different things.

Hybrid working is definitely the way forward. Boots are taking a massive step back and sounds it's the actions of one particular person. They'll have to change if they can't retain staff. I chose to go into the office because I prefer the interaction, and like having my office space set up.
I'm just as productive, or more so, at home though. At work there are constant distarctions and people coming for advice/catch-up etc.
Most WFH people are very capable of being self-motivated and making sure they get the work done. PP saying she is lazy when working from home and all her friends are too, says more about you and your friends than anything else! Why don't you just do your job, I don't get that work ethic and not something I've seen within our large work group.

It will never go back to being the norm of being in the office FT. Young people, with fresh degrees and skills are not looking for that. For employers to stay relevant and attract staff they'll need to be able to offer WFH/hybrid etc. And no, it is in many ways, an employee 's market.
For anyone feeling jealous, you can also change jobs and choose to go in the direction of WFH.
Obviously, some jobs can't be WFH but then don't move into that career. WFH is not everyone's cup of tea, so there will always be enough people to look for non-WFH jobs too. No need to get stressed about it.

" I have a good working relationship with both my team and the wider team. Some of these people I have never met face to face."

I'm sorry, but this made me laugh thinking of those people who claim to be 'in love' with someone they've never met. I accept that you can get along well with people to some extent online, but it's really not the same as face-to-face. Online meetings are also not the same so the time your mother spends travelling to meet her colleagues, only ONCE a month, is well spent imo.

Bring on the revolution!

Honestly, I doubt most of us have the energy.

Its better for everyone that wants to, to WFH.

It gives a better work/life balance, and has nothing to do with being a parent. I haven't got kids but I love WFH and will never work in an office again if I can help it. MY DH also WFH so we have a great work life balance, we both benefit, our dogs benefit, our health is better as we have plenty of time for the gym and we have more time to cook from scratch. The local market benefits as we can pop along to by fresh ingredients.

Hating WFH is very strange imo, work to live, dont live to work.

"PP saying she is lazy when working from home and all her friends are too, says more about you and your friends than anything else!"

I'm lazy all the time. Makes no difference where I am so the wfh is not a 'cause' of laziness.

I agree some workers are lazy. Anyone who does not know some office workers skie, has never worked in an office.

I don't think companies are strict enough with in-office days, and therefore you have many employees effectively doing what they want and not working the expected days in office – taking the piss. My workplace has always been very firm on 3 days in the office and what 3 days they are – for everyone. There is no room for people to take advantage of it as the boundaries are very clear. It is very organised and we all work well. My DH, on the other hand works in an organisation with a hybrid policy that is vague. Saying '2 days in the office' but not stipulating which days, leaves the door open for no one to really know what anyone else is doing and when, and more likely for the crap people to take advantage. It gets very disjointed, and that is more harmful than a well managed hybrid policy.

I was lazier when I had to spend big chunks of my day commuting and getting pissed off and tired from that. I'm definitely way more porductive now than I ever was in an office.

"Public sector, essential workers. Jobs that cannot go unfilled but also realistically will not be paid more due to being government funded."

Wages do change in government-funded jobs. They are not set in stone. I think something like teaching has a more serious recruitment problem than just not being able to wfh anyway.