Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

576 replies

Pleasebeafleabite · 30/08/2024 07:18

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

An anonymous woman sits at a desk and types on a laptop keyboard

Workers could get right to four-day week

Labour is said to be considering giving people more power to choose flexible working hours.

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

OP posts:
Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 11:27

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:18

Tell me this then, how many employers would willingly employ someone who looked after their kids all day then? Not many! Most people don’t divulge that information at interviews.

No idea, especially as I don't know what 'willingly' means in this context. Do they have other options, is the employee cheaper and/or better quality than the employer would otherwise be able to access, would it be an option for both of us for them to take unpaid leave over the holidays instead, is it a role where the child's presence actually makes a difference? This is what I mean about generalisations.

gannett · 30/08/2024 11:29

Also funny how many supposed managers seem unable to... manage?

If your employee's output is subpar for whatever reason then you look at all the factors that might be going into that on a case-by-case basis, because employees' circumstances and personalities are all different. Whether they WFH or not is one of many potential factors.

1offnamechange · 30/08/2024 11:30

Pleasebeafleabite · 30/08/2024 07:25

I am a team manager. I have worked for a long time though now and I think that, whilst people genuinely think they work their hours in their heads, most the time they don’t really.

Compressing five days into four typically means people working nearly 9 hours a day. How many will realistically do those hours?

it's only 8-5 or 9-6, hardly excessive.

if you're a team leader so interested in this subject then presumably you're aware of all the research carried out before flexible/home working became a thing that showed people only tended to actually "work" 4/5 hrs a day even if in the office

but as you're NOT an employer and only an employee it doesn't really matter what you think, does it? Good employers won't 'punish' their staff for something they have no control over - in fact 'good' employers, will have already allowed their staff to work compressed or flexible hours if they want so won't be forced into anything and will just carry on with BAU, with less turnover and better retention than places with little nazi middle managers like you who don't trust their staff.

apart from anything else most places that I know that have allowed staff more flexibility have since sold off lots of their office space, so there are not enough seats for everyone to come back to the office whether 4 or 5 days a week.

Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 11:32

DolyKat · 30/08/2024 11:26

Yes, fair to say if you're recruiting in an area where people don't need niche expertise it's going to be easier for you than it is for employers where the workers hold the balance of power. Meanwhile, the UK as a whole doesn't have enough workers or skills.

This is interesting @Peakpeakpeak because it's difficult for new graduates to get jobs at the moment. I know many who are struggling to get work in their relevant industries and yet we appear as a country, to have a skills shortage!
What I hear is that many employers are looking for people with several years experience, they are not taking on inexperienced people and training them. I wonder whether this is because teams are working remotely so it's difficult to train up inexperienced staff? They need people who can work largely unsupervised?
It's also doesn't work if the mentor is taking chunks out of the day to do other things and then catching up later in the evening.

Anecdote alert, but my own experience of being 'trained' in the office wasn't a great one. People can just as well ignore you and not be available during work hours whilst they're in the same building! I actually think a lot of employers got very used to having cake and eating it when there were plenty of workers. Expecting staff who were already busy to take responsibility for training new starters in addition to their existing workloads. When I worked somewhere there was a dedicated training team, there was such a difference.

But in general, I think what you're talking about here can be a vicious circle. Hard to recruit people with skills, employers may have to widen the geographical net even if they don't want to, the experienced people are too thinly stretched to be able to train other staff as well.

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:34

Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 11:27

No idea, especially as I don't know what 'willingly' means in this context. Do they have other options, is the employee cheaper and/or better quality than the employer would otherwise be able to access, would it be an option for both of us for them to take unpaid leave over the holidays instead, is it a role where the child's presence actually makes a difference? This is what I mean about generalisations.

Employer.. hours are 9 to 5, Mon to Friday. Can you commit to those hours?

Potential Employee. .. of course! Note to self, do not mention I will have young kids here and if they ask.. say I have childcare.

Happens all the time.

KimberleyClark · 30/08/2024 11:35

IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos · 30/08/2024 10:39

You realise that what the proposal is saying is that employees have the right to request a 4 day week with compressed hours?

It's not saying "let's all take Friday's off and sod the other industries".

Yes it is only a right to request. It's still up to the employer, and plenty will refuse. Especially if you don't have children.

LaerealSilverhand · 30/08/2024 11:37

Hmm, we have 600 employees in the U.K. (25,000 globally) and one remaining office in central London with apparently 50 hotdesks (not sure never been there). Lots of us were remote workers before COVID (tech company) but after COVID management realised how much it could save on office space and let the regional office leases lapse and now pretty much everyone is remote. I don’t think there’s any going back for us and I suspect many other companies are the same.

There’s literally no point in me going to an office, neither my boss, nor any of my teammates, are U.K. based. We meet up once a year somewhere nice.

Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 11:39

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:34

Employer.. hours are 9 to 5, Mon to Friday. Can you commit to those hours?

Potential Employee. .. of course! Note to self, do not mention I will have young kids here and if they ask.. say I have childcare.

Happens all the time.

Doesn't tell us anything about the question you asked. Ultimately, it comes down to does the presence of the child actually affect the role, and if so, does the employer have better options available for the wage they want to pay.

Lindjam · 30/08/2024 11:40

You sound very old fashioned and set in your ways OP. I am fairly sure I am older than you, and I think wfh has been great for productivity in my sector. Your business sounds poorly managed.

I can’t see how compressed hours makes any difference to hybrid work tbh. I work compressed hours over four days and it’s brilliant. I would leave if it was withdrawn and take early retirement. The government desperately trying to keep people like me at work, and this is an effective way to achieve that aim.

IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos · 30/08/2024 11:40

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:00

Ok, put it this way, Kids need to be looked after right? Work needs to be done. You are saying both can be done effectively at the same time? Kids don’t suffer and work doesn’t suffer. Would you send your kids to a childminder if they worked all day from home? Would you employ a childminder who had 3 kids under her care everyday?
I don’t think so.

I think it very much depends on the circumstances.

I absolutely wouldn't work with my 2 year old at home every day, because you're right that I couldn't do both effectively.

When she's 5 or 6? Presuming her temperament and ability to understand doesn't drastically deteriorate, through school holidays I could likely juggle both well. She's a fairly chilled, independent kid who just likes to be busy and has a decent attention span. So I could set her up opposite me on my desk with her drawing, her paints, her playdoh. She could watch a bit of TV. I could take a longer lunch to take her to the park and make that time up when DH got home. She would likely chat to me a bit but in my role (which seems to be the bit you can't understand, roles differ as do people and circumstances), if she chatted to me while I was in a meeting, my colleagues and seniors would just say hi to her. And, even at 2, she is able to understand "wait a minute please" and actually do it.

If someone is customer facing and has an incredibly clingy, emotional child who can't entertain themselves or be quiet, then that doesn't work.

But like I said, the blanket approach does not work.

venusandmars · 30/08/2024 11:46

BirdFeederFun · 30/08/2024 07:25

My fear is more the unintended consequences of normalising a very long day.

So employers get used to the very long days worked over 4 days and then some people do 5... Then 5days at long hours become the norm and those doifnb4 days are rebranded as part time.

This happened to my dh. His boss was a workoholic who found it difficult to manage hs time and was always late in the office. He moved to a compressed 4 day week. Great for him, and his family. Terrible for dh who was always under pressure at the end of his working day as more tasks / meetings were scheduled. It eventually led to him changing jobs.

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:48

IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos · 30/08/2024 11:40

I think it very much depends on the circumstances.

I absolutely wouldn't work with my 2 year old at home every day, because you're right that I couldn't do both effectively.

When she's 5 or 6? Presuming her temperament and ability to understand doesn't drastically deteriorate, through school holidays I could likely juggle both well. She's a fairly chilled, independent kid who just likes to be busy and has a decent attention span. So I could set her up opposite me on my desk with her drawing, her paints, her playdoh. She could watch a bit of TV. I could take a longer lunch to take her to the park and make that time up when DH got home. She would likely chat to me a bit but in my role (which seems to be the bit you can't understand, roles differ as do people and circumstances), if she chatted to me while I was in a meeting, my colleagues and seniors would just say hi to her. And, even at 2, she is able to understand "wait a minute please" and actually do it.

If someone is customer facing and has an incredibly clingy, emotional child who can't entertain themselves or be quiet, then that doesn't work.

But like I said, the blanket approach does not work.

Nah, I wouldn’t want to be saying hi to kids in work meetings. Nor have my employee distracted chatting to their kids and asking them to wait at the same time they are meant to be working.

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:51

Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 11:39

Doesn't tell us anything about the question you asked. Ultimately, it comes down to does the presence of the child actually affect the role, and if so, does the employer have better options available for the wage they want to pay.

Of course the presence of a small child or children is going to affect the role. The hours are what the hours are, no small child that needs supervision and care should be there during those hours.

CarterBeatsTheDevil · 30/08/2024 11:54

Pleasebeafleabite · 30/08/2024 08:50

If it was my business I would increase office days, yes. That’s taking into account a full range of teams across a very varied business. In our customer service teams we could see that productivity dropped during Covid

There are all sorts of reasons why productivity dropped during Covid. It wasn't because people were having lots of fun at home instead of working.

I'm able to choose where I work week to week and day to day. I do have a shared office that I can use but I only ever go in if I need the space for a face-to-face meeting and don't have any urgent deadlines looming, because otherwise people will just come and chat to me all day or ask questions and I'll get nothing done. I've always found office environments very hard to concentrate in and get much more done at home. I also find it much less horrible to work a long day in my own home than I do commuting in and out of London.

Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 11:54

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:51

Of course the presence of a small child or children is going to affect the role. The hours are what the hours are, no small child that needs supervision and care should be there during those hours.

Nope, not 'of course'. That's a vast generalisation, not least because children needing wraparound are not 'small' and are often of an age where they don't actually need supervision.

There certainly exist children who'd affect the role, of course. But that is a different point. And regardless of whether you think care should exist during those work hours, it doesn't always. This is a fact on the ground, perhaps one you've been shielded from if so many of your employees have partners who are able to look after DC.

IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos · 30/08/2024 11:59

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:48

Nah, I wouldn’t want to be saying hi to kids in work meetings. Nor have my employee distracted chatting to their kids and asking them to wait at the same time they are meant to be working.

So you don't believe there's any role where it's ok for an employee to have other things around them?

Or do you genuinely believe that if there's no kids around, employees will never be distracted from their work?

Because other employees distract them. Other things distract them. No one is 100% focused on their work for the hours they're being paid for. It's not possible. You'll probably find that me saying "hang on a sec" to my child to answer a call for work has much less impact on my productivity than a different employee being in the office does.

Or are you one of these delightful managers who measure input not output?

MichaelandKirk · 30/08/2024 12:02

Why are managers also the one to blame for not challenging people are clearly working and looking after kids at the same time.

Its the twits who spoil it for the rest of us that are too blame. Everyone is too scared to pull up someone who isnt doing their job. They will hear all sorts such as childcare is too expensive, its only a one off, I have personal problems etc etc. The excuses are far and wide and around the childcare issue - dont apply for a role knowing you dont have it in place

Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 12:06

Why are managers also the one to blame for not challenging people are clearly working and looking after kids at the same time.

This actually is a valid point. Managers operate within the labour market as it is, not as they would like it to be. In the same way that employees must deal with the childcare sector as it is, not as they'd prefer it.

Just because a manager has identified something that's an issue, doesn't mean that they can then manage it away. In the case of childcare during school holidays, a manager not wanting that to happen doesn't magic up a suitably skilled employee who doesn't need to do it and will work for the wage offered.

Put bluntly, some managers know they have to put up with things they don't like because the employees hold the balance of power. That isn't bad management.

sunseaandsoundingoff · 30/08/2024 12:07

I'm an employer and it doesn't change my opinion on working from home, which we let our staff choose whether they want full WFH or time in the office.

We trialled a 4 day week already and people actually didn't like it. The longer days are a lot. And it means cooking/meals/chores/home admin more difficult. And people see a lot less of their family, can't read the kids a bedtime story etc.

Also from our side people were less productive, which is what you'd expect as it's a lot to ask from people to work for that many hours at a desk, thinking (as opposed to a role where you have specific appointments/surgeries/people coming in needing you). And it's more admin trying to figure out shift patterns, as our company is 24/7.

We give people the option now and 100% have chosen a regular 5 day week.

The only advantage really is saving on petrol and traffic once a week for employees who don't work from home.

Pablova · 30/08/2024 12:10

Pleasebeafleabite · 30/08/2024 07:25

I am a team manager. I have worked for a long time though now and I think that, whilst people genuinely think they work their hours in their heads, most the time they don’t really.

Compressing five days into four typically means people working nearly 9 hours a day. How many will realistically do those hours?

I work for a company that has always had compressed hours, in fact we typically require 50% of the team to do 4 x 10 hr shifts.

WFH does not negatively impact this.
If anything it makes it easier for those working a 10hr shift to do it from home as the extra time at work is typically done when they would be commuting and so we encourage those working compressed hours to do so from home.

It’s irrelevant if someone works a standard 5 x 8 or 4 x 10 work week, productivity / output at end of week is expected to be the same irrespective of what shift you are on.

Hydenseek78 · 30/08/2024 12:11

Pleasebeafleabite · 30/08/2024 07:25

I am a team manager. I have worked for a long time though now and I think that, whilst people genuinely think they work their hours in their heads, most the time they don’t really.

Compressing five days into four typically means people working nearly 9 hours a day. How many will realistically do those hours?

My dh wfh and regularly does 12 hrs yesterday was a 15hr day, his colleagues that work in the office a few days a week does 9hr days. He also travels abroad every month where he can be doing a 18hr day with travel.

ObelixtheGaul · 30/08/2024 12:14

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 11:48

Nah, I wouldn’t want to be saying hi to kids in work meetings. Nor have my employee distracted chatting to their kids and asking them to wait at the same time they are meant to be working.

Then you stipulate that upon offering a job. You don't just assume that this is what will happen based on an employee having children. As a manager, you manage your employees. If they do something unacceptable, you raise it as you would with an office-based employee.

Why is it apparently so difficult to manage people who WFH? Why is this about assuming less productivity instead of simply following company protocol when work isn't completed in a timely manner, just as you would in an office?

There are numerous reasons why employees aren't productive. Perhaps they regularly come in with hangovers, are lazy, etc. As I said before, if the work isn't being done and you know it, WFH is not some magic circle in which workers are protected from the usual company procedures around productivity/meeting protocol, etc.

The reason employers are not completing work on schedule, etc, isn't the point. It's up to you, as manager, to raise this with them, to reiterate what is expected of them, to give warnings and possibly notice according to company policy. It's not your job to make assumptions about how they will manage the job based on their personal circumstances. It is your job to manage issues surrounding productivity, wherever your team member is based. It is you company's job to provide clear protocol, expectations and steps if those expectations are not met.

If the worker is not meeting targets etc, you take action. That might mean insistence on office presence. That might mean having to ultimately let an employee go. But none of this should be any different for home workers. You employ someone to do a job. How they managed to do that with their personal commitments is not your concern. Your concern is that the job is being done, and if it isn't, your job is to do something about it.

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 12:14

Peakpeakpeak · 30/08/2024 11:54

Nope, not 'of course'. That's a vast generalisation, not least because children needing wraparound are not 'small' and are often of an age where they don't actually need supervision.

There certainly exist children who'd affect the role, of course. But that is a different point. And regardless of whether you think care should exist during those work hours, it doesn't always. This is a fact on the ground, perhaps one you've been shielded from if so many of your employees have partners who are able to look after DC.

I am, as I have said before, SPECIFICALLY speaking about small children.

If you have an employer who allows you to take the piss and take care of SMALL kids while working from home think yourself lucky,

Youcantellalotofthingsabouttheflowers · 30/08/2024 12:19

IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos · 30/08/2024 11:59

So you don't believe there's any role where it's ok for an employee to have other things around them?

Or do you genuinely believe that if there's no kids around, employees will never be distracted from their work?

Because other employees distract them. Other things distract them. No one is 100% focused on their work for the hours they're being paid for. It's not possible. You'll probably find that me saying "hang on a sec" to my child to answer a call for work has much less impact on my productivity than a different employee being in the office does.

Or are you one of these delightful managers who measure input not output?

Small kids are a huge distraction. What planet are you on? Would you send your child to a childminder who worked from home? Would you employ someone who worked as a childminder at home?

No you wouldn’t.

MichaelandKirk · 30/08/2024 12:19

These threads always go the same way with a lot of people claiming they work much hard, no districtions etc. It really isnt true. Many many studies have shown real issue with this and also analysis as to what some people are doing when they should be working. Show me the person who doesnt justify the school run etc and then 'claims they make it up in the evening'. What - when the kids are in full flow, teas to be done, baths, bedtimes etc. It almost always never happens yet the employee justifies to themselves that it does.

They blank out the pressure that their working practises push onto others. They scream childcare is too expensive so therefore they have no choice. A PP says that the Civil Service demands that childcare is put in place whilst working but what happens if it doesnt. I tell you what happens - NOTHING! As I mentioned previously twice I have had to call at gov dept and twice there have been kids in the background.

Still, at least they answered the blooming call in the first place! There are many many ways government depts in particular (they were my specialism) can mask how many the calls they take, how complex the calls are etc. HMRC calls could last 5 mins of 1 hour - it depends on the query.

There is a place for WFH but it has IMHO become a skivvers charter for many

Swipe left for the next trending thread