If employers were mandated to allow employees to WFH unless there was a clear reason to need someone physically in a workplace

[OptimismvsRealism]

All the trains and buses at commuter time would be so much less hideous

Infections would be down

Diets healthier

Work life balance more serene

Why do humans always work against their own interests?

Some people have always worked from home. I grew up on a farm, so we lived on the job. Of course, Dad was often out in his landrover, seeing to cattle or harvest or whatever, but all the office work was done in the house.

I've been working in IT for more than quarter of a century and I've been able to WFH most of that time - I've had to cover on-call 24/7 in various rotas over that time. I've worked in international teams where we've been spread out over different countries, so whether they're in the office is mostly irrelevant.

My last two jobs have been hybrid, which works well - we are asked to go in on one particular day, do we get to work face-to-face with people, whuch means I've got a lot of meetings tomorrow, but it's a change from sharing screens, and it does make for vloser working relationships. We can go in on other days if desired - there's a desk-booking app, because we couldn't actually accommodate all staff on the same day, but there are a lot of field-based staff who travel to customer sites anyway. I'm just 6 weeks into a new job, and being face-to-face one day a week really does help with getting to know people.

Everyone has the right to request flexible working. Businesses don't have to agree if it doesn't work for the business. The requestor needs to show how it will work for the business, and even then, they may not agree. Different businesses have different needs - not all office jobs are the same, and of course, many roles cannot be fine remotely.

Of course some people take the piss with WFH, but then there have always been some people who took the piss when entirely office-based, and when you've been in a business a little while, you usually know who those people are.

Good teams mostly get on. I don't hate any of my colleagues. Some people can be frustrating to work with - different communication styles and so on. But most of them are actually all right IME, and I've made good friends, been on holiday either some, been to weddings, funerals, seen their children grow up. But even those where we've not been that close, we tend to get on well enough that we can work well together. (There have been a couple of exceptions over the years.)

if you're someone who really does hate everyone in the office, you should probably consider whether they're the problem. It's probably not whether or not you WFH or in the office.

I have friends and leave the house every day to see them and family. If you have these things the office is a huge crushing drag.

I have these AND still enjoy going into the office a few times a week.

Hahaha guess you've not seen the king's speech then. Right to flexible working - get in!

The youngsters will just have to use the internet for "rubbing off" I guess. Sure they'll get the hang of it.

Aye flexible as in part-time family friendly hours, from day one.
Clearly it's not practical for bin men or heart-surgeons to wfh.

Personally I think making flexible working a legal right will make it harder for women to complete in the work place. She's got young kids / aged parents - skip let's not go there - sorry your application was unsuccessful.

No, the private sector pays a portion of costs.
And their econimics are different fgs. They have many more work-place benefits, but then again, they have daft laws. You cannot just tranfer a situation from one country to another. You are being faux naive
But please do emigrate to a 'better' country.

The readers of this thread
Not that difficult

Decisions on wfh by employers seem to depend very much on what senior managers like. So if they want to be in an office to be the big I am, or micro-manage, or avoid domestic responsibilities, or lech on attractive people at work, they will be in favour. My opinion is that one day a week in an office properly managed and with a bit of planning can give you most of the benefits of being face to face, beyond that it is diminishing returns.

An office space should always be available for those who prefer it, or for whom being wfh is bad or does not work for any reason.

What there should not be is people offered jobs on one basis with wfh at a certain level, and then having it different in reality, or changed at a whim. That verges on deception.

All these are perfect reasons why WFH shouldn’t be a thing.

I think the simple answer is, those who worked from home during COVID got into a very cushy routine and want that to continue. There are many of those WFH not using childcare anymore so, in my opinion, are definitely not working as productively as they would be in an office as they’re juggling working/childcare. Just get back to normal like it was before COVUD and stop whinging about having to “go” to work.

I WFH, I don't juggle childcare as I don't have young children. I work just as efficiently at home as I do in the office. I agree that people shouldn't be trying to care for children while working but plenty of us don't.

Hahaha guess you've not seen the king's speech then. Right to flexible working - get in!

Flexible working doesn't automatically mean WFH. I have a very flexible job which is hybrid and is hybrid for a reason.

I haven't read the entire thread but for me there's a risk of creating a divide between younger and older workers, and well off and less well off workers. Young people/less well off people are less likely to have a comfortable, spacious home from which to work. Commuting is stressful but so is trying to cram in a desk beside your bed in a shared house with noisy housemates.

Younger workers learn from older workers by being alongside them in the office. All that tacit knowledge, informal communication, informal networking and relationship building helps careers. Working is not just about completing your tasks, it's about helping the company succeed in the long term.

@ElaineMBenes indeed. Flexible working can mean all sorts of things - home working, compressed hours, part time hours, later starts. It is about a conversation on what works for the individual - within the bounds of the needs of the business.

That's a very 1979 attitude. Let's not have rights because some people will be MEAN.

And there would be a big increase in MUSK problems because the majority of people don’t have an appropriate set up for home working.

Seriously, if you agree to work for a particular employer they can stipulate your working arrangements, providing it’s all legal and above board, of course. As an employee it’s your prerogative to not work there if you don’t like the rules. Why is it that some people think that an employer is there for their convenience - they are paying you to work for them how they see fit.

@OptimismvsRealism that is not what she is saying. It is a reality for most jobs being there in person and being seen is good for your career. The challenge is women are still often primary carer so increased WFH may increase pressure kn women to do this sort of work to fit in childcare, meaning they are less visible in the workplace.

I have a colleague who WFH a lot due to health conditions. He is scupulous about ensuring he comes in once a week if possible and attends all in person meetins and events in order to be visible.

You could say it isn't fair, but humans gonna human, they tend to prioitise and remember people they see and interact with in person.

It's not MEAN to put the needs of the business first. That's exactly what HR are employed to do.

The business is there to make money and serve clients, providing employment is secondary to the above.

If a business needs to be open at 8am to suit the clients, there is little point employing staff who are likely to say - Sorry I can't start until 9.20, you know after the school run -
There will be a load of questions the interviewer can't ask at the interview due to risk of being accused of discrimination so they are likely to avoid parents with kids.

Agree that WFH can harm women's careers, bake in inequality as it gives men even more excuses to offload domestic and childcare burden to wives and mothers. If take-up of flexible working was more equal between the sexes it would be better.

*She's making excuses and she'll have to adapt.

And she will have to find her own social stuff.*

I disagree.
Working alongside colleagues is massively beneficial for the vast majority of new employees, especially young ones. Senior employees should be accessible and visible, and work as role models for such staff.

And the social side of professions can be equally important, especially for young employees moving into new areas.

I know dh's firm provides new employees and trainees with ample social events, for those who want it. As well as promoting young professional groups in the area. This is in addition to providing guidance, work shadowing, being available for a quick question, etc, Being a visible, accessible role model for new staff, especially young ones, is see, as an important skill set and is encouraged by partners.

Whilst they have some flexible working conditions, most of the employees chose to return to the workplace full time, and none choosing to work from home permanently.

If a business needs to be open at 8am to suit the clients, there is little point employing staff who are likely to say - Sorry I can't start until 9.20, you know after the school run -

It depends on many factors, of course, not least the size of business/number of staff. At my last company, they encouraged different start times, because it reduced queuing at the security gates and thus helped improve their environment targets. Certainly lots of us preferred not to travel at rush hour if avoidable- in my case, it made a journey time difference of 25 minutes vs an hour. But it is an international business with early calls to AsiaPac and late calls to the USA, and different start times meant as a team, we could cover both ends of that. Obviously that won't be a consideration for all businesses, but allowing more flexibility around start times could let them open later for customers, if there are enough staff to cover both ends of a longer day. Allowing more flexibility can help the business too sometimes. It's why flexible working requests have to work for the business to be agreed, not just the staff.

@EBearhug
It very much depends on the nature of the business or the service they are providing

Can you imagine how it would work if loads of teachers were to say - I want to flex my legal right and have flexible working. I want to start at 9.30 - who's dealing with their class between 9.00 and 9.30?

So the next time the HT is interviewing, 35 yo woman vs 55 yo woman, who gives her less risk?

Whenever there's a WFH thread, those who oppose it seem completely incapable of accepting that a blanket approach isn't necessary and start pushing out strange arguments like, "why should a data analyst work from home when a firefighter can't do the same."

I've also noticed a clear divide in the attitudes between the two camps.

Supporters of WFH generally accept that it's not for everyone and are happy for others to adopt working patterns that suit their needs. Opponents seem determined to stop it for everyone, everywhere, forever and force everyone back to the office no matter what.

I think this reveals a lot about the type of people who champion full-time office work. Personally, I wouldn't want to work with or be managed by that type of person.

Of course it depends- some jobs simply can't be done from home, or at least, there has to be some physical presence from a team, be it on a rota or whatever - which is why requests need to work for the business. I couldn't have done my lifeguarding summer job from home back when I did that. Plenty of jobs need a physical presence, and plenty of jobs need to work to a particular timetable - which is why most jobs with flexible hours have core time.

But I do also think some managers are very much about presenteeism and will not consider other ways of working, when actually, it could work well for both the business and staff, whether it's about early or late starts, compressed hours, split days, whatever else. There isn't one size fits all even for "everyone in the office every day."

This. I massively struggle with overeating at home. And while logistics are simple wfh, I suspect it has a negative impact on far more people's mental health than actually realise it to be a factor.