To think this is a surefire way to insist that everyone comes back into the office?

[Pleasebeafleabite]

Latest BBC News link today. If I was an employer and I was forced into giving staff compulsory four day weeks based on compressed hours, I’m be making sure they were doing them in the office.

Yet more unintended consequences

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gl5w83z7do

Why don’t companies sack all these workers who sit at home not doing any work?

There are very few benefits of wfh as shown by numerous studies.

People will insist they work 'better' by saving on the commute, which may be true in some jobs usually at a lower level.

But at higher levels of employment in private companies where growth is key to profits and survival (unlike the Civil Service and local government) being in the office is essential for younger people to learn soft skills and management skills from more experienced staff which is not the same by video conferences.

You said kids who are 5 plus. Do keep up.

Nope, it's the same kettle of fish. Children of an age to need summer holidays childcare. You just read summer childcare as small DC and then fulminated accordingly.

It's interesting to see comments on here saying that wfh is great they are more productive and end up doing more hours

No wonder companies aren't insisting people come back if people are doing even more hours

This article gives more coverage of the relationship between the four day week and compressed hours. They are not necessarily linked.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1j98l7er2o

You're right, I don't work my hours from home. Usually I work more. Because if I have something to finish and it's the end of my contracted hours, I usually think "well if I was in the office I'd be driving home now so I'll use that time". Also, because I like to do my job properly.

Maybe your team is full of skivers. But honestly, that's on you to manage. Most adults manage their time and workload appropriately.

Did you not understand that 11 year olds are over 5? Maybe we need to pause this discussion whilst you learn to count. When you've done that, you can look up what age children are at school and thus off in the summer holidays.

In any case, what do you think employers with workers who don't have access to summer holiday childcare for their school aged DC should do? Be specific.

No, you mentioned 5 year olds, not me. are you honestly saying you can work as well as looking after a five or six year old all day?

True again - a classic example of why it sometimes doesn't work for all, and to answer your first question you'll find some will insist the managers who want staff back are all dinosaurs with little understanding who only care about presenteeism

It isn't as simple as that, but it's also an example of what happens when managers employ the usual suggestion of "It's up to them to manage". Try, and some will unleash trouble which can quickly outweight the orginal benefits of the arrangement

OK, so … just don’t do compressed hours, then? Nobody is going to be forced to do compressed hours if they don’t want to. The proposal is just about people who want to do compressed hours being able to request it.

Companies benefit though, sq footage was shrinking in the city before Covid & lots of companies have continued to downsize. So less rent and associated costs.

Absolutely. There's no inherent link at all. OP cobbled together two quite different forms of flexible working, which is why her arguments have generally been incoherent.

In the Civil Service you're not allowed to wfh unless you can guarantee children are excluded from the work space. Which is as it should be.

By ten or eleven when they're happy to come in and watch TV after school you can overlap work and responsibility for kids. Sign out at 15:15 and back in at 15:45 after collecting them. You still have to achieve your conditioned hours so those 30mins are done at some time.

Yep. My SiL is personal assistant to a consultant and her normal working hours are 8.30am-6pm monday to Friday

Shes a fool if she didn't require higher pay. I moved from a 9-5 contract to 9 - 5.30 and had to point out to the recruiter that it was not a pay rise, it was longer hours. I got £5k more as a result.

If i was asked to do 8.30 - 6pm, that would be 20% longer than 9-5, and I would require at least 20% more pay for it. I would probably expect more like 30% to account for that being a job they will struggle to hire for due to the long working hours. Its completely incompatible with children for example.

Compressing 5 into 4 means 10hrs of work a day, not ‘nearly 9’.

There are so many ways to monitor hours worked from home remotely, if you don’t have the technical expertise to judge how long the tasks your employees have should take and you distrust their status reports.

Failure to crack on with the job in time and quality standards is a performance issue whether at home or in the office.

Not dealing with it is a failure of management.

I’ve never actually met anyone who’s against working at home or a four day week, because most people value their life outside of work- which it doesn’t really sound like you do

Actually, I said 5+. You appeared to think this didn't include 10 year olds, which was bemusing. I personally couldn't, no, but then you don't seem to read posts very well so I expect you missed that I don't need holiday childcare.

Meanwhile, be specific about what an employer should do in a situation where they do not have the option of a worker who has full holiday childcare available. Go on. I've asked several times now, and you've fired out other (irrelevant) questions whilst swerving this one. It's your go.

Someone mentioned UK productivity.

We do have low productivity but it’s not because of remote workers.

It’s much more complex but generally,

We never recovered from the 08 crash
Chronic underinvestment
Lack of skills
infrastructure.

You are being deliberately obtuse. I don’t care what they do, their childcare is not my problem. What would they do if WFH was not an option? Not work? No they double job and expect the employer to “suck it up”. That affects availability and productivity. It’s taking the piss.
Again, for your comprehension, I am not talking about 11 year olds like in the PP instance, I am talking about small kids.
Find a childminder and pay the money and do your job properly.

My partner works for a v large private defence contractor, highly profitable.

Hybrid WFH, compressed hours IF you want it, which many do, especially parents.

DD's partner works for a highly profitable private company, again, hybrid working, they are moving to a 4 day week, after a successful trial for many but not all staff.
My DD works in the NHS, on the days she has to write up notes or do staff training, she is WFH, no distractions and can focus on what she is doing.

The idea that its the "lazy Civil Service" that are doing tis is for the birds.

I agree with this stance. My issue was with small kids running around, crying and needing care when I am trying to brief an employee on a call. It doesn’t work.

It doesn’t have to be offered. It’s right there in the opening line that it can be REQUESTED

Full-time workers could be given the right to ask their employers to work a four-day week

What’s changing is that employees will potentially be able to make flexible working requests from day one, rather than after a period of employment as currently.

In 1990 (?) I worked for an employer that offered 5 day week, 4.5 day week, or 9 day fortnight. It worked very well.
AL was worked out in hours & minutes - very convenient if you wanted an hour or so off rather than take half a day.