To feel that remote working should be a right, not a privilege?

[AlertBird]

With the advances in technology, it seems outdated that so many companies still require employees to come into the office for jobs that could easily be done remotely. AIBU to think that, for jobs where possible, remote working should be a right, not a privilege? It could help with work-life balance and reduce stress, but a lot of employers seem stuck in their old ways of thinking.

Neither. A negotiation.

Those remote staff are much easier to fire if they aren’t performing though.

My company has a lot of remote staff in Romania but if they do anything wrong or underperform they are gone the next day.

Unsurprisingly these are some of the best staff.

I do t think it should be a right as very much depends on company, work, dynamics. I’ve been in some bad wfh jobs that seem to have put no thought into it and ones that are really invested into it and it’s a much more pleasant experience, so I feel the company has to have a framework in place and that can’t be forced.

But I love it very much, apart from some work experience at college/school that was in person it’s the only type of work I’ve had, have a disability and i wouldn’t be able to work without it.

Quite.

We have brought many over from Budapest for the same reason, they’re excellent workers.

Not like the recent calibre of UK Grads who come with zero experience or ability, yet think they’re doing you a favour by bringing their whole authentic self to work.

There's another thread going with the OP being advised labour is going to give the rights to employees to work whatever hours they want and companies can't say no!🙄

This. We need reasons to leave our homes when so much can be done on line and delivered to us.

Why should it be a right? It has security implications, equipment needed. There's been research to say people can become isolated and depressed left working at home without interaction with other people. There's been red

I'm a district nurse - I can't work from home.Watch that shows face to face can be better for things like appraisals, training, wellbeing

There's also the fact that people do their washing, weekly shop, look after kids when they should be working - WFH requires trust that needs to be earned and demonstrated

Nope. They are proposing the change flexible working so people can apply for it from their first day of employment and that people working from home will have the right to switch off ie not answer Emails outside of work hours.

www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/f2e10e81/labour-party-publish-update-to-its-proposals-for-employment-law-what-new

Erm, nope. There will still be ample reasons for business not to allow FW.

I find it interesting that many against WFH as a principle even though it would benefit them are against it because there's a sense of togetherness in suffering needlessly. You can't have this nice thing that might make your life a bit easier because I'm miserable and want you to be miserable too even if I'd also be a little less miserable.
It would also put many noses out of joint if it were normalised. All the non-sense about in-person interaction being important is not a factor. That expensive building in central London that costs you an arm and a leg to get to, and that sandwich you'll buy at lunch which is probably the price of your weekly food shop won't buy themselves if your WFH. Equally entire management structures would be thrown under the spotlight - other than hovering over people's desks all day looking busy many people don't have anything of value to bring to the business.
WFH would also be the undoing of hard won power structures that many won't give up without a fight.

I think you e lost sight of what a job is. You are given money to fulfil a role as outlined by the person or company paying you. Of course you don’t have a right to tell them to pay you to do something different.

It’s already a first day right to request flex working. Those of in in HR see very little change in what they are proposing.

Not sure if anyone else feels the same but for my own sanity I NEED to work in office around others. During lockdown I offered to not be furloughed and wanted to still come into the workplace 5 days a week, and let my other colleagues be at home (they wanted to be furloughed)

It is up to the employer and it’s up to you if you are happy with it.

If my boss told me I’m WFH from now on, I’d leave and find a new job that’s office based

Just like if you want to WFH, don’t take a job that requires you to go into the office?

Your choice!

I’ve gone from a role working fully remote (but travelling to different sites) to one where I travel 4 hours each way twice a month for the week to fit in office expectations. Want to know which one I prefer??

YANBU. Rachel Reeves said recently that she set an example by going into the office. Big whoop Rachel - you're a millionaire who gets chauffeured door to door. That kind of crassness is why the Tories were booted out. I'd like Rachel to walk us through how a public sector worker is supposed to live safely within commuting distance of a London office on a piss-poor non-Whitehall salary. Successive governments - new Labour included - have created a desperate housing crisis, there's a col crisis and Labour seem to be doing fuck all to address it, trains are unreliable and unaffordable, wages - especially in the public sector - have plummeted year after year, retraining/upskilling into better paid work is out of the reach of many. Until those issues are addressed flexible working will continue to be a necessity not a luxury and should be a right.

Hybrid is a good balance, with the flexibility to work from home if a bit poorly but well enough to work, if have someone coming to fix the boiler, have to pick the children up as a one off surely? Flexibility is better when it works both ways, but some people won't come into office ever/without a fight even if it's for a particular reason such as training a new member of staff, in person training session, client meeting etc. I work with someone who comes into office every day for example because some of the job is better done from the office and a lot of grads benefit from the in person support; but travels home at lunch so can do school pick up. Another comes in 2 days a week but if needs to wfh more that's also fine as has some health and caring considerations- but they'll come into office without a fuss when they can. Some others go in every day but are happy chatting with their staff online every day, others have further to travel so come in less frequently, but people plan for this and make sure their time in office is worthwhile.

Nope, they are changing the law to make flexible working the default for all, unless the employer can prove it’s unreasonable. Direct from the government website. That article you’ve posted is out of date.

I work for a virtual first company. A lot of people hate it. They feel abandoned and cut off from colleagues. I’ve had a new manager for the last 6 months, spoken to him 3 times. He’s admitted that he has no idea what I do. How am I supposed to progress if my manager has no clue what my role is?

There will, but the reasons won’t include “because I don’t like it” or “we believe we’re better in the office”, it will need to be something more tangible like “needs to be present to serve customers/coach junior staff face to face etc.”

Human contact is important for very many reasons and we are in danger of reaching a situation where people struggle to communicate in person, because we have become so used to doing so through a screen. That’s not a positive thing for interaction, consideration, empathy and a host of attributes that humans need to function in society.

I agree that junior members of a team learn from more senior members and actually seeing them and interacting with them, facilitates that process. There are jobs and professions that require people to appreciate and understand nuances that come from face to face interactions.

When possible, hybrid can be an effective way of working. Employees appreciate the flexibility and employers appreciate the commitment and output, on the whole. Completely WFA relies on commitment and flexibility from both sides and if employees are not giving that commitment because they are trying to give childcare or undertake other household tasks, it negatively impacts those who are productive WFA.

As with most things, balance is required.

Interesting, our HR department see a big shift, the onus is now on the employer to prove a request is unreasonable before denying it, whereas previously could hide behind “we believe performance is better in the office”.

It varies wildly from company to company. I wfh as a base but am out with clients most days so it makes no sense to drive to x just to pick up a pool car. I drive my own car and claim mileage from home. We have quarterly, all day, get to togethers for the team and annual company day of talks to attend. The team chat is also endless. Irritating as hell as you get email notifications and it’s often a guess where this photo is 🤦‍♀️

It can't be an automatic right.

Midwives, deep sea divers and train drivers would be in some difficulty taking that up.

So first some roles could, other roles just couldn't.

Then I think it should be down to company policy stated clearly and applied fairly, no moving goalposts. If they're happy to have it, great. So the candidate could decide where to apply for work.

And if it's not to be the norm, a clear fair procedure on who might individually qualify to do it and why - eg, disability, living remotely and unable to commute/relocate due to family circumstances, snow, etc.

Don't be silly.
Of course it's a privilege.
Employers are not obliged to employ anyone. The business gets to define the role that needs doing and to find an employee that suits that role. If it best meets business needs to have someone on site then that is fine. An employee may feel they can do their job just as well remotely but if them being offsite makes anyone else's job more difficult then the employer can obviously insist they are on site.

The idea of ot being a "right" is laughable in how ignorant you'd have to be of all the jobs that can never be remote.

No it shouldn’t be a right. It’s a benefit, where the organisation has determined that it works for them. I think it’s great to have the flexibility but in my organisation it wouldn’t work well for everyone to be remote all the time. I don’t think I’m owed whatever working pattern I want from my employer, it’s a negotiation and ultimately it’s up to me to decide whether the contractual conditions suit me or if I’d be better off elsewhere.