To think that workplaces should be less accommodating of personal lives?

[HangryDenimBird]

I’ve noticed workplaces bending over backwards to accommodate personal lives. AIBU to think that employees should keep their personal issues separate from work?

I don't think this is always the case.

There are some people in my husband's workplace - civil service - who are absolutely not creating any value.

They can't get rid of them.

We have tried to make our business a nice place to be, tried to accommodate and help where it's been needed, unfortunately though a couple.of employees have taken the mickey, sat on phones arranging social lives, began to feel entitled about finishing early etc and we have had to clamp down and set firm boundaries (which shouldn't have been crossed in the first place) it's a shame but the minority have spoilt things

Sounds like a management issue. Very easy to distinguish between reasonable things to let people have flexibility for and piss taking mentioned I. The original post I responded to. And if someone isn’t performing, whether it’s in WFH or in person, deal with it. Don’t just stop everyone else.

Hard hat on.....

I tried to have a reasoned conversation with a colleague about how non parents are effected when those with children need to suddenly have time off. This was pre WFH being so universal for office roles.

So big snow storm, schools closed, parents had to stay home with their children. Now I get that completely but my comment was that there should be some thanks to those who do come to work and pick up the work that others would be doing normally. I also said that there was no reason, in my opinion, why both parents had to be at home to look after 1 or 2 children - assuming neither had complicated problems of course.

Well you would have thought I'd suggested drowning kittens or tying the children out in the garden in the pouring rain.

Obviously I quite agree with legislation about taking time off when kids are sick etc and things are much easier now that many people can WFH so the impact is less than it used to be.

As for personal lives interfering with work....had a colleague who couldn't come to work as the air con dries his skin and he'd run out of moisturiser. It was going to take at least a week to special order it. Another who was on holiday and couldn't get back as one of the people with him had caught a cold and didn't want to travel home (from Wales, so not a long distance flight or anything).

it’s absolutely not can’t. It’s won’t.

Surely You still have to show that it genuinely impacts productivity though? As I said before, if the work can be done equally well 8-4 as 9-5 without any business impact and that works better for some of your staff then what reason is there to retain a rigid 9-5? No one ever books meetings in my work until 9.30 so from my line of work the ability to be flexible makes no difference.

"Bring your whole self to work" which leads to dressing in fetish gear in the toilets - no thanks.
Making sure nobody has to stay till 7 when all the local after school clubs finish at 5.45 - yes please.

Maybe.

If it takes years to get rid of people, I think that changes the whole scenario.

I've wondered how many of the people who think that this kind of entitlement isn't a concern work in the private vs public, or charity, sector. Because IME it is often so difficult to do anything in the latter two that it's not practical in practice in many cases.

It's interesting to me to consider my brother, who now works in a place where he is basically a private setting. He doesn't have any qualms about getting rid of people who aren't interesting in really contributing. He's considered a good boss, not an asshole, willing to be flexible and cares about his teams qol.

But he previously worked in a public sector version of the same position and it was totally different. Apart from really out there behaviour like theft or sexual assault, it was so difficult to get rid of anyone that usually instead they were moved around to a place where they couldn't cause as much damage, in cases where they had to get rid of someone, often they "left" with some kind of severance rather than go through the time it would have taken to fire them.

And if someone isn’t performing, whether it’s in WFH or in person, deal with it. Don’t just stop everyone else
The problem is managing or over seeing everyone under you to the level of scrutiny that would be required to then be able to take action with the piss taker in a reasonable, non challengeable way takes so much time and energy that it takes away from the time to actually get in with the decision making tasks that justify a manager's earning.

It's easier to just tightened the rules for all.

I don't think the OPs post refers to accommodations such as 8-4 instead of 9-5 which are normal accommodations. I have worked 8-4 in a 9-5 environment for over 10 years because it helps me avoid rush hour tube - not because I need to. Everyone has the right to split their 7 hour working day however they choose where I work. We are talking about "bending over backwards". I don't want this to be too outing but this year I've had conference calls with people working from the French Alps, hiking with their children, from the beach in Barcelona and from their Grandmother's house in Madrid. With people with toddlers running round whilst they are trying to work, toddlers who need full time attention. We've had one colleague who claimed she was allergic to the building so didn't come in at all - no request for proof of course. I could give many more examples. There are no checks on productivity. It's gone way beyond what is good for morale and is beyond management's capability to rein it back in. I think those are the situations the oP is referring to.