Change in Working from Home procedure

[HappyKite2067]

I have a fairly flexible job, I’m expected to be on site for certain meetings and activities but for the past 2 years, outside of this I could work from home. We are now being encouraged to be onsite more and although we don’t have a WFH policy, the procedure has changed. We now can only WFH limited days and we have to seek permission to do so. It feels like my job, which was previously very flexible and suited me, has turned into quite a micro managed job. Am I being unreasonable to think this is something to be bothered about, and raise with HR? Or are most work places now starting to push staff back into the office?

I find it mind-boggling that people don't get this - they seem to think that if you wfh, you should be chained to your desk at all times and can't get up for a 5 minute walk/break😂

Also, I end up wasting so much time when I'm in the office with getting people coming up and chatting to me about nonsense/gossiping - it's not as clear-cut as people think

That's the thing. I'm in a very niche job, they're paying for what I deliver, one week I might work 50+ hours and the next my contracted 37. Because I can wfh around dc etc I'm willing to do that, forced into the office they'll get 37 hours and whatever falls down happens.

Recently I did a 6 hour round trip for a 3 hour meeting because I was told I had to 'show my face'.

I don't doubt that wfh is a more practical and manageable solution for many. Reading many of these threads, I do wonder if the impact on women is negative? So many threads about combining wfh with childcare and other responsibilities. One woman said she could talk to clients on the phone while changing her child's nappy.
Ultimately, though, if work performance is good, there's no argument against it.

In my last two jobs they've pushed for two days a week and then backed off for a bit.
Where I am now once a week for people who don't live to far away has become the norm, but no one is being checked up on.

I think if companies actually got rid of the pisstakers things would be a lot easier. But that was true when I was in the office 4 days a week.

Having to ask every week just feels humiliating and creates bad feeling. Hope it settles down for you and a system of trust returns.

I know, it is such a waste of time commuting if you are just going to sit in an office on your own anyway and so tiring too.

I commuted in to London for 20 years, but I have been able to work from home for the last 15 years. I am now nearly 60 and there is no way I could commute again.

It is fine when you are younger as you have much more energy.

To me it's not about where the person works, it's about productivity. I do expect people in from time to time and I have told a new start she needs to be in at least once a week, but effective line management should address most location concerns.

@rookiemere I manage a team of four people, and this is my stance. Its about contribution, not location. So far, I've had no problems. One of my team has a child who has just started school, she requested (and was granted) some extra flexibility to make this work. Her daughter seems to have settled well and the team member is happy and productive.

I agree. I read stories in the media of being pushed to do 5 days per week, but everyone in Real Life seems to be doing 2 or 3. But then I suppose those cases are not newsworthy!

Yep!

There's a narrative that's developed on here that there's a general trend towards employers getting people back into the office, and that this is all to do with vague ideas about piss taking. And as you rightly point out, employers continuing with remote working policies that suit all concerned isn't news!

One other thing I would say that is really interesting and noticeable in our office, we're only required to come in once a month or for key meetings, but some of us actually like going in - I prefer hybrid to wfh so I go in twice a week- and there's a real buzz in the office because those of us that are there are choosing to go in, so it's sociable at lunchtime when people eat together at the lunch tables and there's a good amount of chat in between.

In the same boat with WFH for the last 4 years and now told need to be in the office for 3 days a week.

I insisted on an OH referral and the company doctor has said I need to WFH indefinitely due to a chronic health condition. So far no response from my manager / HR but I’m hoping this does the trick as OH confirms I’d fall under the equality act.

It’s so frustrating as I’d said I’d get in for any team events / training where collaboration was needed but that wasn’t good enough. It means now OH have said I shouldn’t go in at all.

I’d love to be able to get in a couple of days a week but I can’t. And this will keep me working full time, able to manage my condition without sickness absence and continue to perform well in my job.

The whole picture is complex. Lots of places are demanding staff in the office more. But then in turn that impacts retention as people move on to more flexible positions. Whether those issues with retention will mean a change in stance for those companies I don’t know. We’re still in a bit of a state of flux.

Actually, I don't think the company is within its rights to revert back to February 2020.

Official WFH requirements ended years ago, and if your place of work has allowed you to WFH for two years they've modified the contract you signed originally.

Actually they can, provided the ‘office’ was stated in the contract as the place of work and the requirement is considered to be a ‘reasonable management request’.

Ie, the employee would have to take their employer to tribunal and prove that it was unreasonable - and unless the nature of the job itself has changed, it is hard for an employee to do. I think, as most people has stated, most employers are asking for a minimum number of days in the office (3-4 each week) anyway, but this also lends power to their ‘reasonableness’ should a case go to tribunal.

As companies hire new people they will likely state that that they are expected to be in the office 100% of the time (my DH’s firm does this), unless agreed otherwise on a case by case basis. Over time, this will make it more and more ‘reasonable’ for management to request remaining hybrid staff increase office hours. Or WFH staff will find themselves floating to the top of redundancy lists (I’ve notice that of the people I know being made redundant in the last year, they were largely WFH staff - though that may simply be a coincidence and unrelated).

Anyone working from home who wants to protect this, needs to consult with their management and HR and formally change the terms and conditions of their contracts.

People on here don't seem to realize that, so long as the correct procedures are followed ( consultation, termination and reengagement), employers are well within their rights to vary terms of employment according to business need.

All they'd have to prove in a tribunal situation was that they had followed the legal procedures correctly and had just business grounds.

Although I joined after Covid, this workplace has always had flexible work but work from home before Covid wasn’t really as common. It would be more, people might go home at lunch if they were going away the next day etc. My actually states I am expected to work flexibly, I think this is meant for their benefit but actually I’m assuming I can also use this as basis for me working flexible!

Yes, I think places are expecting their staff to be in the office more. Unless your contract states your home address as your place of work, or explicitly states 'hybrid, with x days in the office' then I don't think a complaint to HR will get you very far. And if your contract does state either of those things, then they're varying the terms of your contract, for which they'd need to consult you formally (unless they've put a mobility clause in the contract allowing them to vary the terms).

Fwiw, I agree with you in principle. But if the flexible working has always been an informal perk, then the only thing you can really do is look for a job with greater (formalised) flexibility.

This happened to DH too, they changed it to 28 days maximum a year - and that included if you were sick and decided to wfh instead of spread your germs in the office.

After a few months they got rid of the policy and made it “managers discretion” with no numerical cap 🤷‍♀️

Do people realise if they arent face to face to build relationships they will be largely forgotton. You might be good at your role but if no one knows you or knows what you look like (one team member refused to have her camera on) then the bean counters will start to look for people who are much cheaper than you. People based in India,The Phillippines etc.

Companies dont trust people to work from home due to issues. If there werent any concerns and in fact productivity increased then they wouldnt be 'forcing' people to come back in.

A number of pp have said during Covid some employees were using it as an opportunity to move to a cheaper part of the UK fully expecting WFH to continue forever! I know of two people in my large FTSE company who did this and then tried to claim to travelling costs from the new location! Those people eventually appeared on a redundancy list or marked as going into the Transtion Centre which meant their current role was surplus and they needed to find something else by xxx time.

The post is about hybrid/flexible working not working from home full time. However, there are plenty of people who don’t feel like they need to be known in their jobs. Not everyone wants to move up a corporate ladder, plenty are happy doing a good job and having a good work life balance.

Theyve now done quite a few pilot studies to show productivity does increase but it doesn’t fit some people’s agenda

I'm always amazed by how many MNers don't even comprehend jobs where you might have to build relationships with people who don't live in the same geographical area as you. Radical I know!

Also, outsourcing to cheaper Indian staff is rather outdated now. Another MN go to assumption is that there's a suitably well qualified Indian just waiting to do the job at a fraction of the price. Get with the programme, people with in demand skills have options and want renumerating appropriately. If you're Indian and can work remotely for a UK company in India, you can also work remotely for organisations in countries that pay more...

I'm always amazed by how many MNers don't even comprehend jobs where you might have to build relationships with people who don't live in the same geographical area as you. Radical I know!

Exactly. I was in the office last week and had a call with someone in the New York office who I speak to regularly.
The other main people I spoke to were all in the office - but not the same office as me.
The relationship building would have been the same if we were all dialling in from home. The only difference would be the background of our calls.
Even my direct team, including direct manager, are all based in different offices.

I go into the office fairly regularly. But it's more for a change of scenery, it doesn't aid my work at all. All the people I work with day to day are somewhere else.

@OrdsallChord

But team cohesion can be hard to achieve unless people are in the same location, I've had issues myself. Then there's the fact that not everyone wfh when they are meant to, dp had to let 2 members of staff go because they were working on other projects/for other people when they were supposed to be working for him and naively thought they would get away with it (forgetting laptops and company mobiles tell all!)

Wfh for specific reasons eg sick child, inconvenient timed drs etc is fine, but for many employers having you there most if the time works best. And as a customer, having the customer service representative actually concentrating on your call really helps, understandable during the initial Covid outbreak but since mid 2021 there's no excuses for hearing tv, dogs barking etc when on the phone to the bank!

This is a good example of what I was talking about.

Some jobs mean you have to build relationships with people who live a long way away from you. That's literally the role. It doesn't actually matter whether you're right about team cohesion being easier if everyone is in the same room, when your role requires contact with people all over. It's a very parochial way of looking at things.

Really, what do you think jobs that involve collaborating with people at the other end of the country or even the other side of the world do? You have to think a bit beyond call centre staff. Although even in that specific example, good luck recruiting enough of those who'll come into work and pay childcare on those crap wages.

My DH was in a similar position to some of you where he'd been asked to up his office days, but he'd be going in to an office in city 1 where his team were a mix of city 2, city 3, and WFH on that day.
I work very locally to home however and go into the office 2-3 times a week (and if I'm away for part of a week I try to go in once) because then I can drop in on someone who's giving me tech support, find out the admin gossip over coffee, or just chat to colleagues about how they are doing. They are not necessarily immediate team members, we try to have a team meeting with my line managees once a week and that doesn't have to be in person.

He was civil service and it all seemed totally pointless even if Jacob Rees-Mogg was going to come round and check up on him (which was unlikely as city 1 wasn't London). So he retired.

But team cohesion can be hard to achieve unless people are in the same location, I've had issues myself. Then there's the fact that not everyone wfh when they are meant to, dp had to let 2 members of staff go because they were working on other projects/for other people when they were supposed to be working for him and naively thought they would get away with it (forgetting laptops and company mobiles tell all!)

Team cohesion is fairly easy to achieve at distance with the right team culture and using tech in a clever way. Besides which it's necessary to find ways to build cohesion if your team is spread out across multiple locations which many are. It's poor management if you can't monitor and manage productivity at a distance, and where there are poor performers you manage them on a case by case basis, not penalise the whole team because of the piss takers, who were no doubt equally taking the piss when office based.