To ask for 2 days instead of 3 in the office

[ellecf21]

I am part time. Company I work for has been 2 days in the office since covid. When I came back from Mat leave and into my part time role (3 days) my manager was happy for me to work 1 day in the office. This helped massively with my work life balance and has been well managed with nursery etc.

The company now want everyone in 3 days a week. My manager initially told me not to worry but has obviously had pushback. I said I'd meet in the middle and do 2 which is fair as that is 60% time in the office which is the same as 3 days for a full time person. They kept saying they want to be consistent but work patterns aren't consistent in the business. I get paid 60% of a FT role and therefore think it's fair to pro rata it. I could tell he agrees and there are obv people higher up pushing back. AIBU? This will require me to shell out for early nursery drop off and there is no reason for me to be in office as all my meetings are remote so it's purely for bum on a seat.

I don't think you're being unreasonable but I don't know whether there's anything you can really do about it.

My company has moved to 60%, but they will pro-rata it for part time employees. If you work 4 days you still have to do 3 in the office as otherwise it's only 50%, but if you just work 3 then you're fine to do 2.

There is an argument to be had both ways. Would it be better for you to do networking etc in the office? Part timers often struggle to progress and I'd worry that by not being as visible in the office you'll be looked over. However if that's not an issue then submit a formal flexible working request.

Who decides the reason?

This entirely. Should be pro rata

I think you're being totally reasonable but unfortunately I don't think you will be able to enforce it if they're insistent.

I'm in your situation and am lucky enough that my employer lets me do 50% in the office (full time employees do 60%). They consider it part of my flexible working request, which they're very big on promoting (local council so the only incentives they offer really are those that "cost nothing").

Have they done an equality analysis over this? It sounds very much like they are treating you at a detriment to full time employees.

I would submit a grievance and say you are being treated less favourably due to your part time status. If the expectation is 60% for a full time employee then that should be the expectation of a part time employee too.

I think it's clear they haven't. I really appreciate your response and it's made me see that actually they've based this on nothing and have no consideration for different work patterns across the business. I'm hoping my LM comes back with an ok to 2 days but if not I'll consider this.

I've kind of come to terms with this for now, favouring my flexibility over anything else. I'm not too fussed about massive progression and am just grateful to be able to earn some money part time in a career job for now. I've been there 6 years and know my team very well. There are no in person meetings and the company is large so no networking with other teams takes place anyway.

Thanks all. It seems my next step will be to submit a flexible working request if they don't informally accept my ask which I do feel is fair. It's good to see that it seems like a fair request too so I appreciate your thoughts.

YANBU at all. At my work full timers are expected in the office 2 days a week, part timers 1 day.

It's pro-rata-ed where I work too. Though not very heavily enforced so although I'm PT I am in the office now than some FT employees!

I try to offer flexibility and say I'll be able to come in any of my 3 days for meetings as required, but might not work for you.

My employer is moving away from WFH & expecting employees to spend 40% of their time in the office. I'm just about to reduce my working hours from F/T to P/T - 3 days a week. I'm expected to work in the office 2 days one week & 1 day the next. I find that I'm more productive WFH as I just get my head down & am not distracted by people stopping at my desk for a chat, when I go to the loo or to get a drink at home it's a quick trip whereas in the office I have to go down 2 floors & often meet someone who wants a chat. A 3 minute loo break often takes 10. But then there are benefits - I can meet a friend or my DS for lunch while I'm in town, combine office working with supermarket run etc. On balance though I'd rather WFH.

I prefer to WFH and meeting in the middle at two days still isn't great for me but I can see that it's fair and reasonable in comparison to my FT colleagues who will be doing 3. It's also just for a short time as I'm going back on Mat leave in April during which time I might have a rethink about whether the company is right for me anymore. I'd rather work in a remote-first company because it works for me in this current phase of my life so might look to make a change (which is scary as I'm very settled where I am).