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?

Some people do abuse it, SIL uses a mouse clicker thing while she is skiving.
I do hybrid and often am more productive at home where it's quiet. I end up putting headphones in at work.

As an editor of a scientific journal, one would rather hope so.

I’m in a similar situation: have a long term disability which causes issues if I take ill far from home (and is exacerbated by tiredness and stress). I work for a fintech who whilst I don’t agree with the blanket return to the office policy they implemented, I’m very fortunate that they have supported the reasonable adjustment request suggest by off health which is for me to work from home long term

It does but I think WFH is awful for people just starting out. And the job I had was very much office based - in fact just about d detone on my team could work remotely other than me.
WFH should definitely be an option if possible, but I don't think either in office or WFH should be mandated.

Commuting to the office CAN impact childcare and school drop offs.

I commute to another city. My travel is not back to what is was before COVID because public transport is in shambles. What took an hour and 20 mins before now takes at least 30 minutes, and often longer each way.

I can start work at 7.30, stop at 8.30 to supervise school run and be at my desk at 9am for meetings no problem. If I need to be in the office for 9am, I have to leave at 6.45 or earlier to catch the bus to the train station and allow time for them not to turn up. I will get a taxi at my own expense if I have an important meeting to prep for.

I work 10 to 12 hour days. I can do what I want during my lunch break, if I take one. People will always take advantage. If you are lazy WFH, you are probably not making the best use of the time working in the office.

Some people come into the office, grab breakfast, a coffee and chat about what was on TV last night. All when supposedly working. Not all people do this, not everyone working from home is skiving. In my experience, people are more productive WFH.

There is a lot of envy and lack of understanding about WFH. One of the people in my life most critical about WFH has never done it. I think THEY would probably take the piss and so believe that is what everyone else would do.

I worked for 5 hours today unpaid to catch up because I had a lot of meetings on Friday. I am flexible because my employer is.

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

There's nothing stopping those who prefer the office from going in. Funnily enough, unless it's an organisation that has got rid of its offices, nobody says you can't work in an office, so it's not an issue. I have colleagues who go in 4 days a week although they only have to be in twice a week.

If your employer has got rid of their offices and you don't like it, you either find a co-working hub to work in or you find another job.

Commuting to the office CAN impact childcare and school drop offs.

Yes, but the fact that it predominantly affects women is a societal problem (which on an individual level can only be dealt with by couples themselves), not the fault of individual employers.

It affects both myself and my husband because we are both parents who need to drop off the kids.

We take it in turns to work outside of the home (either office or client sites). When I'm in the office then I don't have time to do drop off so my husband does it, and vice versa.

If we both worked in the office 5 days a week then no one would be there to do drop off, so I guess we'd have to get a nanny or something. Or I'd one of us would have to work a shorter day or give up our job.

So it affects parents, not just women

It was meant to be laughable! 🙄

I dont imagine anyone opposes the idea that wfh is brilliant at enabling people with disabilities to work at a variety of jobs and contribute to the economy, and that this should be used to its full extent.

This thread isn't about that though, it's about whether everyone should be able to demand the right to wfh. And to claim that because it was better than nothing during lockdown, therefore it's fine is laughable.

All members of the workforce have to be considered. Evidence is growing that wfh does have a downside, most notably the development of new entrants to the workforce, that is damaging businesses and that will disadvantage everyone

What worries me, is that people like you, exist. It makes for sad reading for disabled people, single mums who depend on flexibility, parents whose children have SEN.
But people like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis so...

@neverwakeasleepingbaby but it's not just me. There are many people at home but definitely not working. I know of some people for whom it works better and they feel they're more productive, but I know more who loved WFH because they worked out the bare minimum they could get away with and did that.

So we all have to come into the office because you and your friends are incapable of being self disciplined. Cheers mate

Are you happy to have colleagues sitting at home doing not much of anything at all while you're picking up their slack?

@tootiredtoocare I don't pick up anyone else's slack. I work the hours that I need to on my client's cases and bill them accordingly. If I meet or exceed my billing target then my boss and firm are happy, and I get a payrise/bonus/promotion. What everyone else is doing at the firm is of little consequence to me. They would get managed out quickly if they didn't meet their target.

That's not how it works as a solicitor, usually. The only person the slacker is causing problems for is themselves, as they'll be the ones rushing to meet deadlines later if they're persistently slacking.

And your comment about people 'feeling' they're more productive at home also doesn't apply to anyone who has to record time. It's obvious and demonstrable that we're more productive at home (if we are).

But who picks up the slack when things need doing in the office? When a colleague needs a quick bit of advice? When new staff need some training? etc?

Outcomes aren't just what you can measure. It's also the overall contribution to the organisation.

How are you training and supervising if you’re at home? Who does someone go to if they want to discuss a query they have on a case ?

What kind of things need doing in the office? You'll have to explain the type of task you're thinking of and I'll say who does it (we have permanent office-based admin / facilities staff, for instance).

Advice is done over Teams. You call the person who has the knowledge you need (or my supervisees call me in the first instance to see if I know, if not I'll either tell them where to look, find out myself, or direct them to somebody who's likely to have the answer).

Training is either from somebody already doing the job (either F2F on an office day or remotely) or from your supervisor / team leader, depending on the query.

Those of us who supervise have a lower billable target than those who don't, to allow for this kind of thing being needed.

@Badbadbunny I have a Teams chat with most colleagues that would need that sort of thing off me. We give each other a quick call if it's more complicated.
I really do think that for certain professions, wfh works extremely well, and maybe some people don't appreciate that

@Parker231 Teams calls are great for discussing cases. Particularly because you can have the documents open and be reviewing them on a shared screen. There's absolutely no need to be in the same room. I prefer it to reviewing in person with huge files and hard copies of documents.

Poor for trainees and NQ’s - there’s going to be poorer quality solicitors going forward.

Why do you say that? My supervisees get really good training from me (confirmed by our auditor, it's not just me saying it!).

@Parker231 well I am the NQ in this situation but I think I'm doing fine thanks

Nothing beats sitting with someone 5 days a week, sharing knowledge and experience and providing reassurance to those with less time served. I feel very sorry for those training in the last few years - they’ve missed out hugely. It will show as they try and progress.

I think it is more complicated than that. PP have mentioned the disadvantages of always being at home and especially of combining childcare with doing a job.

There's also the contract that each employee signed. If the job was clearly office based when it started, either all or part of the time, it is not reasonable for the employee to insist at working from home. They may request to work from home and hopefully their employer will try to be flexible and accommodate their personal needs, but it has never been a right, and only COVID made it so common.