To think the call back into the office is an example of the patriarchy very much alive and well?

[Yestttlo]

And anyone who thinks otherwise is either brainwashed by the patriarchy or isn’t a mother with a huge proportion of child related responsibility on her shoulders? (Or someone who is in a job where they can’t work from home so don’t want to support other women having the right to).

I have worked from home since covid. Been in the office eight times where it was necessary, for instance a company away day or face to face client meeting. I have a young dc and the call back to the office will damage my career progression due to time spent travelling which means I can’t be online longer and because I will be stretched to get household stuff done .. no I don’t mean I clean the toilets during work hours but that I can put a wash on first thing and know I can unload it at lunch, or get cooking done for the evening during my lunch break which means my evening is not chaotic and I can actually rest a little before starting in full force again the next day.

I will be fighting it to the very end. I will make my views clear. I strongly believe that forcing people into offices hugely disproportionately affects women. My work can be done anywhere. Forcing back into offices is a neon sign that the patriarchy is alive and well. Thoughts?

Utter nonsense.

I worked in HK for four years - the expat environment has largely gone, with western talent replaced by locals (Chinese).

That arbitrage has well and truly closed.

I'm confused that you're confused.

Office based jobs are calling for people to come in because they feel that benefits the organsiation. If an employer has decided that a mixed or entirely office based structure works best for their business, then someone who can't do that has the right to put in a flexible working request, as I said several posts ago.

I think the problem with your reasoning is that you are refusing to accept that there are valid reasons why a 100% WFH approach does not work well in all situations.

I’m sure they do , that’s why they want people back in offices because they know that some people are abusing WFH

That has nothing to do with extroversion, though. That has to do with social skills. I’m an introvert. I’m also confident, sociable and enjoy friendships and socialising, I just need a lot of time alone to recharge afterwards. Introverts are just as capable of professional socialising as extroverts, they just need to factor in more recovery time to compensate. Introverts may also of course be shy, anxious, and dreadful at socialising, but that’s not because they’re introverts, it’s because they’re shy, anxious or dreadful at socialising.

And of course, in many jobs, someone who is capable of flexibility and getting along with their colleagues will progress. If Brenda is hiding her light under a bushel at home, how is anyone going to know she would be a brilliant manager?

@Floralnomad - do you think this or do you know it? Do you have direct experience?

So you intend to be "a nightmare" over this OP?

Good luck with that since very few of us are as indispensable as we like to imagine - and FWIW I'm one of those who's hugely in favour of WFH when it works properly for all

I am an editor of a scientific journal based in Hong Kong. We have a global work force.
What's nonsense about that?

Yes if you’re feeling exhausted by doing work related socialising more frequently than you’d like it’s often absolutely to do with introversion! I didn’t say myself or these people didn’t want to socialise at all, or weren’t capable of it. It just was too much in that job alongside our work. It definitely comes more easier to natural extroverts to thrive in those sorts of places even if their actual work is nothing special.

I also have a wide range of friendships and enjoying making new connections! Some of my oldest and closest friends are actually from previous workplaces.

And btw to your earlier post it’s not as simple as “avoiding people” now that’s a very lazy way of describing what’s going on. WFH is often about the fact that some people -both ND and NT- concentrate better and also interact with others better in certain environments.

I have one office I spoke about upthread that I absolutely loved working in and I described why. There were obviously people there but aside from the sometimes stressful commute it was a joy to go there.

My current office now and most others I’ve worked in ever, is very different and what’s more - 98.% of my team are not there. They are in different offices around the country.

I’d effectively be going in to my local office to talk to them…via teams. Which is the same as I do from home, except I can hear better from my quiet study without all the background noise from the open plan office caused by someone nearby chattering , on a call or opening the window on a windy day.

Not only that but - and this part is not really to do with extroversion - but the commute is awful thanks to Avanti trains and the utter disregard this country has for providing good public transport outside of London. “People” are fine too many, when they’re not stressed annoyed commuters falling about on a delayed train where they can’t get a seat. But it can become more stressful in these situations. So again it comes down to environment. It’s not just “avoiding the people” as such, it’s the circumstances.

Try doing that from the off if you're disabled. And consider how permanently wfh in a job that values office time impacts progression.
I'm bowing out. If you get a spare moment please try and consider how you felt during lockdown and consider it being your permanent life. Take care.

But my point was that those who prefer an office environment might be denied the choice of what they want. Why do only wfh fans get to choose?

In an economic downturn the choice might be work in an office or lose your job to someone who will. I don't think it will be as drastic as that and there will still be opportunities for wfh I'm sure, but I think people who imagine that worker power can force employers to allow everyone who wants to to wfh are deluding themselves

That has nothing to do with extroversion, though. That has to do with social skills. I’m an introvert. I’m also confident, sociable and enjoy friendships and socialising, I just need a lot of time alone to recharge afterwards. Introverts are just as capable of professional socialising as extroverts, they just need to factor in more recovery time to compensate. Introverts may also of course be shy, anxious, and dreadful at socialising, but that’s not because they’re introverts, it’s because they’re shy, anxious or dreadful at socialising.

Totally agree, @MinorGodhead particularly the part where you point out that people with talent and potential are going to be lost, working from home. This is bad for individuals and organisations.

Like you I have good social skills and am confident, friendly and enjoy social contact. I'm not loud or dominant (which is what I suspect people mean by extravert) but I can play my part in a conversation and I'm happy to talk to anyone. It comes as a surprise to many when I out myself as quite introverted. As you say, what that means is that while I enjoy socialising it does run down my batteries. With extraverts, social contact recharges them. I, like you, need plenty of quiet time. I think we have the best of both worlds: happy in company, happy on our own.

Agreed! Actually my husband does more than 50%.

To the poster who wrote The right to work from home is essential for women, that is utter nonsense. My husband and I both work full time and neither of us have the option to wfh - apart from lockdown, we never have. We have two small children and it's absolutely fine. We share the school drop offs and pick ups, and just use our common sense (eg moving closer to where we work to limit commuting time). We don't have family aound either so have no extra help but women working from home is not essential and those who argue that are setting women back 50 years!

Absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with patriarchy and everything to do with all that's wrong with every other aspect of society. You will always have two ostensibly identical individuals with the same background, opportunity and income. Two individuals WFH - some are diligent and some will take the piss. Two individuals with the same job, education, income and life 'trajectory' - some will save and make provision for their old age and some will holiday extensively, eat out and 'live life' (as commonly advocated by MN) and expect the state/tax payer to pick up the cost of their old age. Employers are already compromised by Reeves' budget and Rayners' drive for 'workers rights' basically making it even less possible to get rid of the piss takers, particularly the Public Sector ones. Suggesting its patriarchy is just ridiculous.

Employer’s get choices too.

And you can’t really claim to be “fighting patriarchy” while upholding gendered norms about the division of household labour.

Congratulations, well done.

How many people do you think work remotely, on a global basis? Very few. I should know because I have worked in the US, Asia and Europe.

The sands are shifting, with deglobalisation, with AI, with headcount reductions premised on a very uncertain macro. Hence firms like JPM recalling all staff back to the office five-days per week. And if people don’t like it, well, there’s the door.

Wake up and smell the hummus.

Nope. Working from home you should have adequate childcare you should actually be working not putting the washing in etc

The problem with people wfh is that they tend to treat it like extra time off.
Where I work we can all wfh one day pw, the number of times people ask to wfh on say Thursday because the water meter guy is coming or they are taking delivery of a large item is astonishing. The other annoying thing is when people ask you to do a task because 'they have lost their WiFi signal' etc.
I don't think it will be very long before the wfh privilege is removed.

During lockdown the choice was between enabling staff to wfh or closing down completely. As it is lockdown was hugely damaging in economic terms although the wfh was only one element of the whole.

To extrapolate that merely because wfh was a success during lockdown that it will therefore be the best model to continue with now we have returned to normal does not necessarily stack up.

It's almost like saying that because life rafts saved many passengers from the Titanic therefore life rafts are the best vessel to cross the Atlantic from now on.

I have friends from my local town I grew up in as a child/teen as well as friends I just met while travelling solo for a month last year and everything in between.

I was known as a chatterbox in school and gained a wide range of friends in uni.

So to be clear noone - at least not me - is saying all introverted people can’t hold a good conversation or make friendly connections professionally or otherwise. That’s not the issue or what I was saying

It's clearly not saying that. It's saying it's proven to be a viable option to enable marginalised groups who previously couldn't work to work. Your example is so absurd, it's laughable.

Are you saying that women with children are marginalised?

But it’s not up to your employer to facilitate you putting on washing & tidying up during the day.

I don't think it should affect childcare as presumably you aren't going to collect children during working hours?

Can I ask @Yestttlo , what is your opinion is ‘The Patriarchy’? I always thought it was systems which men put in place to keep women down. However, you say women are also responsible.

OK. I think I'll be OK until I retire.

Interesting. I'm talking about disabled people but in some circumstances, perhaps, if they're without care for example. If it enables women who couldn't work to work, I think that's great.