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?

My friend is self employed and spends a decent chunk of each year working from abroad while travelling. She takes multiple holidays each year but some of those days she will spend working. Her clients don't even need to know where she is. She earns a fortune so it hasn't affected her output .

You will see that I said he was old enough to walk home. You can infer from this that he was therefore old enough to take care of himself for a little while at home.
Some days he had after school clubs, other days he would go to the childminder (as I work full time and preferred him to have company) and some days he'd enjoy a few hours entertaining himself at home.

The clue is in the term ‘self employed’

@chocolatespreadsandwich

Those chats aren't pointless, they are part of what makes you feel like a team, part of what roots you in a work place.

Maybe, debatable. I personally find them draining and tedious but the argument that’s always being made by the all back to the office contingent is that people are more productive in the office. Which in my case is demonstrably not true.

Theres a lack of consistency in this argument: why is it OK to waste 40 minutes making tea and talking about Baby Reindeer in the break room but not OK to put laundry on while you WhatsApp your desk mate?

My point is her clients were perfectly happy with her work whether she did it at home or in a beach side villa on a tropical island - and they were none the wiser

I am neither for nor against the return to the office, I think what is best varies widely from job to job and person to person.

And I have no issue with my team chatting at work or putting the laundry on at home etc as long as they are getting the job done

In my household, dh and adult son wfh (occasional days in office) and I go out to work.

@chocolatespreadsandwich

Of course. But it does wind me up when people who have no experience of it unthinkingly parrot out this "productivity" mantra.

To be clear, I am not advocating for union membership.

I am private sector and the area I am in - it would never happen.

I think unions can be fantastic. I also think few of the generally well paid people complaining that they have to go to work at JPMorgan have a leg to stand on.
What I think is truly offensive is the Starbucks ceo hired last year from chipotle. The man is being paid something like $80 MILLION and he was staying in his home in San Fran not relocating to Seattle to work full time in the office, despite most starbucks workers earning minimum wage and having to physically turn up. That’s offensive.

A CEO would be subject to a stringent contract - if that contract entitles him to WFH, that’s up to him and SB.

As to the workers earning minimum wage, assuming many were baristas etc., then of course they need to be on site. I assume a significant number would be seasonal workers and students etc., meaning temporary roles.

Fucking hell OP - who pissed in your tea this morning - what are you SO angry. It's only Tuesday as well 😂.

Obviously he’s legally allowed to! It’s just such an incredibly shit example of leading from the top when equally obviously most of your staff cannot wfh ever and he gets paid such absolute megabucks he could get a helicopter ride to the office every day if he wanted. How is he ever supposed to inspire or motivate any of them?

I sit on several Boards so I have some insight.

A CEO is not supposed to be on site every day - that’s more the role of a COO. Of course, it’s inspiring etc if the CEO makes an appearance, but I would imagine, in this case, he spends a lot of time in the air etc.

This is all dependent on which sector one operates in of course.

Thank you but that clarifies my point about people cancelling cc whilst WFH or parent WFH while children present

@Yestttlo
"However the point remains that someone has to do more, it’s never 50/50, and that’s usually women due to breastfeeding, time off from maternity leave etc. The right to work from home is essential for women"

What about women that have to go into work. Like cleaners, retail or restaurant staff, nurses, doctors, barristers, bus or train drivers, construction workers (to name just a few). What message have you got for them? You sound entitled. Besides, anyone working from home is supposed to be doing just that, not looking after kids or putting the washing on.

Can you remind me what your point about WFH with children present is?

There is a HUGE difference between supervising a young child all day and an older child entertaining themselves for a couple of hours in the afternoon a couple of times a week. The latter is no different to said child letting themselves in when no parent is at home (latchkey kids) which has been happening for a very long time.

Of course I would never cancel a cc to collect a child.

I don't use after-school childcare because I WFH. But. That doesn't mean I work less than I did before . My time is all recordable in 6 minutes blocks anyway.
Dd either relaxes and plays with Lego /the dog /watches TV, or (most nights) I drop her to a dance class or her tutor at 4 and then carry on working and DH picks her up.

I have increased flexibility in how and when I work but I still exceed my targets

Lots of "internal admin" being recorded on @chocolatespreadsandwich timesheet today 😅

Oh I take it back. All posts before 9am or during a lunch break, which I suppose everyone is allowed 😉 sorry @chocolatespreadsandwich

I have to respectfully disagree with framing this as primarily a women's issue or example of patriarchy. By positioning WFH as a women's rights issue, we actually reinforce the problematic assumption that household and childcare responsibilities should fall primarily on women. This isn't a women's issue - it's a parenting and caring issue that affects all caregivers regardless of gender.
Households shouldn't be held up by women alone, and suggesting they should be is actually taking us backwards in terms of gender equality. Your partner's inability to WFH isn't a gender issue - many people of all genders have roles that require in-person presence.

While I understand your passion for WFH and agree it can be beneficial, being in the workplace also has important advantages, particularly for younger employees who benefit from mentorship, relationship building, and developing those crucial soft skills that come from in-person interaction. These skills are vital for career progression regardless of gender.

There are valid arguments on both sides of the WFH debate around productivity, collaboration, work-life balance, and career development. But framing it as a patriarchal issue oversimplifies a complex topic and, ironically, could reinforce gender stereotypes about caregiving responsibilities.

This might not be the hill to die on - perhaps focusing on advocating for flexible work arrangements based on role requirements and individual circumstances would be more constructive than taking an adversarial stance based on gender

Apology accepted . Although the joy of flexible working is that my work don't care when I work as long as I hit targets etc. So I am taking a break now to pick up DD from school and drop her to dance and then will work till early evening. When she went to bed earlier I finished work at three and then worked from 8-10 pm to make up the time

Agreed. I know several men, in my workplace alone, who value flexible working as it means they can manage chronic health conditions (for instance) or because they do half the school runs

Panorama next Monday should be a good watch! "Should we still be working from home?"

Average whinger over Covid: "What! I can't go to the pub!?!! People need to understand that being at home all the time is terrible for my mental health!"

Average whinger now: "What! You want me to stop watching boxsets and doing housework during work hours and actually come to work!?!! People need to understand that being at work all the time is terrible for my mental health!"