Employers hell bent on working in the office full time

[NewDayNewLife25]

Anyone else currently job searching and noticed the same thing?

I'm utterly miserable in my current role which is unfortunate as I've been there for 4 years and use to love it, but a new manager has changed things. I've always worked from home.

Anyway, I've been applying for jobs, mainly remote/hybrid working but also a few office based roles. I always state in my cover letter what I'm looking for, and my address is on my CV too.

A few employers have contacted me, saying that I'm perfect for the role, have all the experience/skills that's required and that they think I would make a great addition to the team. But as soon as I've asked about the working set up, that's it, done. They won't entertain it and decline my application.

I just think it's a shame. I know that they probably have plenty of applications, but surely it's more important to hire the right person, with the right skills and experience. Not just because that person happens to live near the office. Half the time they can't even explain why they need the person in the office. Is it control?

I'm fed up already!

@Portakalkedi

As long as they specify exactly what they're looking for in their description.

I think this is the issue. Lots of people only started to work remotely due to lockdown & so when they took the job it was office based. The employers are within their rights to ask staff to go back into the workplace.

Some people moved further away to get a cheaper property, bought a dog, cancelled after school club, joined a gym & the list goes on. Now they are refusing to go in despite the fact that when they took the job it meant going into work.

PBJsandwich123, indeed. And with the rise of AI, posters who think employers should be bending over to accommodate their wfh requests should be looking into the future a little.

I don't know how anyone can manage someone remotely - I suppose add in a meeting for 3pm to check they aren't doing the school run when they're supposed to be working?

Maybe by trusting them?

It'd be pretty insulting for a manager to do what you describe if they've never been given any reason not to trust the person they are managing. If they're taking the piss, it'll show up in their output and that's the time to deal with it. But assuming staff will be swinging the lead based on no evidence is insulting.

@bringincrazyback

It'd be pretty insulting for a manager to do what you describe if they've never been given any reason not to trust the person they are managing.

Why is it insulting to put a meeting in mid way through the afternoon on a working day?

The issue is that lots of people are saying they nip out to get on with life admin when they wfh. So how does a manager know who is working & who is popping out to do their life admin?

Insulting is neither here nor there. Realistic is what matters. Fact is, an awful lot of people do very little when wfh, and this is not always evident in output - it depends what your output is, how experienced you are, how thorough you are, your accuracy rate, how generous the workplan is, etc.etc. - a lot of variables hence it's very difficult to tell sometimes who is taking the piss and who isn't. But human nature being what it is, many people get away with what they can. Just look at another thread going on now about an OP who has optimised her job such that she can do it in 7 hours a week - lots of replies saying she should just sit tight and enjoy it. So obviously, that's what plenty of people would do. It's morally wrong, but it's what happens. So trying to dismiss reality by saying it's insulting is just, well, unrealistic and not the point.

Lots of companies went mostly remote in Covid, then hybrid afterwards & are now shifting back to in office mostly/ full time. If WFH worked well for the employer, they'd continue allowing it to a) minimise costs that go with running the office, b) keep existing staff happy and c) widen talent pool for external hires.

The very fact they're moving back towards office attendance shows that WFH isn't working for them. You may think you can do your job just as well from home but it's not what you think that counts. For example, senior people in office based companies can often do their job from home. However, a junior person learns a lot from overhearing the seniors on phone calls, the quick chat bumping into them in the loos or grabbing coffee. So the company may want their seniors in the office. This is just an example of why jobs that can be done from home are being told to return to office.

I don't really understand your problem. If applying for WFH, then surely it's WFH. If applying for office based, it's worth a shot but you can't complain when they say no!

If their staff are worth their salt, then they can be trusted. Untrustworthy staff will soon show themselves by their lack of output. If people are skiving and getting away with it, management need to take responsibility for clamping down on those specific people in a way that doesn't treat the rest as potential culprits too.

And no, scheduling a meeting for a specific time isn't insulting per se. But doing it to try and catch people out across the board, absent of any evidence they're abusing wfh, is insulting. Of course it is. It's treating grown adults like schoolchildren.

@bringincrazyback it's not catching people out? If it's a genuine meeting, I'd often schedule for mid PM as that's when for most people, energy is lowest so frees up higher energy morning to power through work. There might be reasons other than catching people out

Agreed. However, pp was suggesting meetings should be held then 'to check they aren't doing the school run when they're supposed to be working', so they were definitely advocating it be done to try and catch people out.

What I find frustrating is that I work school hours, as my DD has special needs and cannot go to breakfast club or after school club (lack of 1-2-1), I have a carer's passport that states I will be in the office one day a week, but every few weeks I get an ear bending if there's been a few occasions when I can't make the one day for the same reasons I've had the adjustment down from the 60% in-office mandate in the first place. And DH can't always pick up the slack - he already picks her up 3 days a week, but often has meetings straight after, so can't do the after school childcare as well as the pick ups...

@curliegirlie totally understand from your perspective & you're doing a great job.

However, from your employer's perspective, they've already made a big adjustment there and so they expect you in that 1 day.

There's a tension there & I see both sides

why is it a massive adjustment? they have been clearly told the requirements..I would assume that the passport is next to impossible to get.
it keep her in the workforce. would you rather she sit at home and claim benefits?

That's really annoying. I have also negotiated one day a week (down from 40-60%) due to reasonable adjustments and some weeks i can't manage that but my boss is absolutely fine about it. I get my work done and get to the office as often as I physically can

"would you rather she sit at home and claim benefits?"*

Well, that's just it, isn't it? I fully admit that was absolutely a silver lining of Covid that suddenly WFH was normalised. DD was at nursery afternoons pre-Covid, my MIL would come and do childcare on my working days and ferry her to pre-school, but she wouldn't have been able to come early enough to do the school-run proper for us. If it wasn't for hybrid working I'd have almost certainly had to give up my job, and be looking at local, lower paying, non-professional jobs. I'm hugely grateful for the flexibility of today, but wish I didn't have to spend so much time justifying myself and the hoops we gave to jump through to make things work...

A Carer Passport in employment is essentially a conversation about the flexibility needed to combine work and care. It’s a conversation which involves balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of the business to balance both. It’s not about being told what needs to happen, it’s about the business and the carer working in partnership deciding a way forward. By the description the person has given the business has made allowances to support them but unfortunately the carer can not always accommodate what has been agreed because of her caring responsibilities. This has created a very difficult situation for her everyone involved especially as the business does not seem to be understanding

It’s interesting. One of my kids has had a few graduate offers come in. He’s trying to find out which of his first choice companies need you to come into the office the most and he is going to choose that. He does not want to sit at home in a houseshare working on his laptop in the bedroom. He is desperate to experience the world of work face-to-face.

He’s not alone. Many of his bright, enthusiastic and ambitious friends feel the same. So whilst companies who have more staff working from home may attract the parents and the older age groups, they may miss out on the young graduates who do not want to start their careers sitting at home.

I’m not bending her ear at all I completely understand what she is saying and was explaining what the passport is because you clearly don’t know. And if you read my post correctly you would see I was sympathetic to the carer. You are only seeing it from YOUR perspective

but I did not ask for an explanation whatsoever nor quoted you.

You didn’t know what it was and your assumptions about it were incorrect.

I did not ask YOU what it was!!

tThis is a forum and anyone can reply or quote.. I was perfectly polite to you when I quoted
you but you didn’t reply in the same manner and that is why your reply was deleted.by Netmums. You may not agree with me and I may not agree with you but there is absolutely no need to be rude or aggressive in your replies

And I do support the carer

@Munnygirl you've hit the nail on the head. There's one day in the week (when MIL does one of the pick ups - we also have another daughter at a different school), that I can do relatively easily; another that I can often swap to if DH can't pick up on the normal day, but the other days are really tricky. I always try and go to away days, conferences, come in if we have in person meetings with externals, and I do enjoy it on days when my whole team is there, but it grates when we're pushed to come in just to sit on the same Teams calls and just to push up attendance stats. It's presenteeism at its worst. And to do those awkward days either means that either DH has to look after the DCs when he's meant to be working (so I can travel in after drop off and thus stay longer) or DD2 has to get up before 7 so I can drop her to her breakfast club so I can leave work at 2.30 to be home when DD1 gets back from school. It's just nuts when there's no real reason for me to be in.

I think you are doing an amazing job in what must be VERY difficult circumstances and I am sorry your company is not being very understanding as it just added extra stress. Wishing you the very best