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

In MN world everyone’s a self motivated high performer. In real life a lot of workers are very average...

Also an MN world, every issue can just be performance managed, which in real life is stressful for all and very time-consuming for a manager. So much so that individuals have to be seriously under performing before it’s a worthwhile endeavour.

Not in the office though apparently. Getting people to work in person solves all productivity and skiving issues, and nobody would ever take the piss if they're in physical proximity to other employees. There's a whole cohort of MNers who simply cannot comprehend the concept of a person being inefficient in an office.

So the reward for working hard is more work?

Whether they do less or more really doesnt matter. Do they do the work set and provided for in the hours they work. If yes, cool. Job done. If no, then no amount of hours in the office or outside the office will matter. They either have too much to do or cant do it. More hours wont help in that case.

My husband is wfh permanently after Covid, never been back in. He works much longer hours at home as he doesn't have to travel up to London twice a day. He works during those hours instead.

But most good sized businesses are going to have big customer service teams servicing whatever their output is.

Yes they might have a few niche performers like you and these threads always bring them out but they’re not the bread and butter of the business output.

We have roles within the company I work for that can do this, the problem is, they nearly all don’t work on Friday and it’s almost been accepted that there is less output every Friday, this can cause resentment with teams that aren’t able to do this (usually the customer facing teams) I understand people want a long weekend but it still needs to work for the business.

Exactly I work a 9 hour day and I’m not on compressed hours. I also work in person but jobs or projects where I’ve wfh I’ve been FAR more productive. Less micro management, unnecessary meetings, and office politics and distractions. I called in sick less too as wasn’t getting constantly sick from the tube/train.

You sound like the sort of manager everyone dislikes and doesn’t actually get good work out of employees.

The best managers I’ve worked with engage and motivate staff their staff by trust, good communication and not micromanaging. You sound like you need complete control in person of your staff to be able to manage, which doesn’t foster a positive work environment and is a sign of weak management. Had plenty of those sorts of managers.

No it’s a good review at the end of the year and a better pay rise and bonus

I don't object to a compressed hours week in theory, after all, flexi-time has always worked very well. But it does very much depend on the job. If your business is small and requires a constant presence in a customer facing or customer service role then this sort of thing could mess up your staffing levels.

I also agree it should only apply to actual presence in the physical workplace though. People who work largely or entirely from home probably already don't work five full days a week and pick and choose their own compressed hours to suit. Why give them even more rope to take the piss?

It's a huge problem in the civil service in particular. If the councils sell off the office buildings then they will cost a fortune to re-build or buy back again when we all decide that remote working just isn't optimum in certain roles. We are in the process of setting up a business and have needed umpteen phone calls and phone appointments with the local authority and with our bank. Trying to pin down anyone to speak to when they are all working from home has been a nightmare, especially on Mondays and Fridays. People just don't answer their phone and we get constant 'out of office' messages on both the phone and email, despite being told by colleagues that they are not on holiday and should be available.

As much as I would love it, I can't see how it would be reasonably feasible where I work, unless all our clients also moved to 4 days pw.

Also how does that work with childcare, because add in commuting time and you'll need much longer wrap around care.

Given lots of us already work 4 day weeks on 80% and quite often 9 hour days too I can't see the employer going for it.

The article is rage bait as is the OP. Compressed hours is already one of the options within the current flexible working request rules. The info on the current rules are on the gov.uk site.
https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working

Anyone has the right to request flexible working.

It is hard to work out exactly what changes are being suggested from the rage bait article. But compressed hours are absolutely nothing new.

I can't understand the anti-flexible working mindset. IMO the laziest most work shy people I have known were the ones who spent the most time in the office. Moaning about work, distracting others and achieving a net negative amount of work!

Can you explain what you mean by the customer service point? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Also not sure what 'good sized' means here either, and why that's been added to the example.

I know someone who works a 4 day week. It isn't compressed hours, they've actually taken a pay cut to do this because work is so intense and there's a very real danger of burnout. The reality is that they now work 4 very long days and still end up with 'emergency' stuff on their day off!

I think very long days aren't ideal for people's wellbeing and agree with the pp of the danger in normalising very long days. I'm not convinced the 5th day 'off' will be much use to knackered people in the long run.

Upside is reduced commuting time/costs. Not convinced that workers should have a right to it or to insist on wfh every day. In the end a business hires workers to do a job - the employer isn't unreasonable to want that job done in the way which best suits the business.

Most of my team have been working compressed hours from home for many years with no issues. It's nothing new.

Compressed hours are extremely common and this would simply give you the right to request it and if there is a good reason the business can say no. Many, many employers in all kinds of sectors negotiate hours with employees every day without any big drama. I also don’t see how this would impact wfh one way or another.

I think wfh will mean a shortage of nurses, teachers, those who have no choice but to go out to work

Yes...so many roles can't be done from home or a physical presence is required. An example GPs receptionist/carers - if they wanted compressed hours who would do the additional days? This could increase costs for those employers were a physical presence is required.

There has to be an assessment as risk of unintended consequences for some of the already toughest jobs that struggle to recruit.

WFH can work for some roles but office working is definitely positive and effective. An example, overhearing how a colleague deals with a tricky situation leads to learning.

Collaboration is way better in the office but I think you only see the benefits if you have oversight for a few areas - that doesn't mean "chatting" to coworkers.

However I do agree that all employers should seek to be more flexible but that includes teachers who seem to be so restricted in their working patterns.

Lol loads of people do compressed 4 day weeks at my work and aren’t forced into the office anymore than anyone else.

@Pleasebeafleabite
'Reading the Telegraph article it shifts the balance of powers in favour of the employee rather than the employer. '

And?

I never understand why some managers/employers feel that something that benefits their workforce should automatically be resisted at all costs...

I think you hold some really old fashioned views.

A happy workforce is more likely to be productive, want to do their best and to stay in their job rather than look for more enlightened employers. Surveys have shown that candidates look for employers who offer flexible working and WFH when looking at job vacancies.

WFH and flexible working also helps people like me who have long-term health conditions/disabilities stay in employment.

I really don't get your 'logic' about office working.

I work for a charity and our office is a small open plan office with no PCs (so I have to carry my own laptop all the time), it is really noisy and has a poor Wi-Fi and only 1 meeting room so booking meetings is a nightmare. When I am there that environment actually prevents me from doing my work!

Not to mention that the exhaustion of commuting for someone like me means I have less energy to focus on work when I have to travel to the office.

Your need to remember that flexible working help people like me who are disabled but also people with caring responsibilities (as the time spent commuting can instead be spent caring for young kids or relatives).

When you think about it the office 9 to 5, or 9 to 6, 5 days a week was really designed for able, young men with no family responsibilities or older men who have a stay at home wife to look after kids and house but is not the best set up for many other groups.

WFH and flexible working help make the workplace more accessible.

A lot of places already offer this, especially in the public sector, it's just compressed hours,

Yes, my public sector employer has been offering compressed hours for some time. Nothing new going on here

Not everyone wants it. My work offered compressed hours. Less then 10% said they wanted to do it. I think the majority of those were working parents with nursery age children.

It would surely depend on the type of business and a particular role? If you need someone on reception from 08:00 - 16:00 Monday - Friday, they can't do 08:00 - 18:00 Monday - Thursday instead (Although if you have more than one person in the role, it gives you more options so probably you can, and maybe extendhours overall.)

I have found work stress much less with more flexible hours. I'm a techy, who sometimes has to do out of hours work and sometimes on-call 24/7. There are always certain restrictions, so no one is likely to be allowed a regular day off on the agreed office working day, but otherwise, the work can fit well to compressed hours or off-set hours or whatever. Customer-facing roles are usually more restrictive, because you have to have someone available at set hours, and possibly in a physical location- but it doesn't mean there's no chance of flexibility.

Many public sector roles already have flexi-time, where you can work longer days to build up hours you can then take as TOIL. I liked that, but doing full compressed hours - say 4 10h days rather than 5 8 hs, I think I'd struggle, as it's too long as a regular thing. But I can see others it would work well for.

I think more flexibility where it's possible tends to increase productivity and loyalty. Yes, there will be some people who take the piss, but that has always been the case, even when some are 100% on site. A good manager will see that through their productivity levels and take action accordingly, which may not include having someone in the office full-time. My last 2 employers no longer have the office-space to have everyone on site every day.

Different types of flexible working won't work for all businesses, but I think some businesses could be more flexible than they think they can.

Teachers routinely do 12-14 hour days. NHS workers do shockingly long shifts. I’m sure people will cope with 9 if they get a 3 day weekend

@Pleasebeafleabite - you wrote "Compressing five days into four typically means people working nearly 9 hours a day. How many will realistically do those hours?"

Clearly those employees who spend a lot of time per week commuting to and from the office (wasted time) and who will see the value in starting at 7am and finishing at 7pm four days a week for the same pay. The employer is not, I'll repeat that not losing out on time that their employee works for. The employer may have to make adjustments to the new practices but do you know something, adjustments got made in the past and they simply became the way things happen.

A lot of people do work longer hours per day than they are paid for and if they aren't on some sort of flexi-time system, that time only benefits the employer as the employee doesn't get TOIL or payment for these extra hours. I think this is a positive step and if my employer was offering it but only if I had to return to the office, I'd have to give a very long thought to whether I wanted to work for that employer going forwards.

It's not a better pay rise and bonus if they are doing more work. It's them eventually being paid for the additional work. Possibly. Carrot and stick culture. Says it all really.

I work 4 days condensed hours, 4 x 10hrs

And boy do I work those hours.

I rarely take time out, for lunch I eat at my desk, I'm not chatting to coworkers, or wandering around the office. So they get more working hours out of me.

Plus I don't have a commute to and from work.