Work announced a move from 2 days to 4 days

[Everanewbie]

Hi all. I'm looking for some suggestions of what avenues I might have.

I started a job just over a year ago. It is company that I worked for some time ago, but had to leave due to personal circumstances, which was with regret. I was thrilled to be offered the job. I applied and received the offer where I was told at both I was obligated to be in the office twice a week.

I left a job that was entirely remote (well, with the exception of trips in to London maybe once a month) to take up this role, accepting two days in person because I was excited by the role. Pay incidentally, is much the same, above the average, but only HRT if a decent bonus is paid. I now pay to park in a city centre twice a week and drive maybe 10 miles or so to get there.

I have child that is full time in nursery and my husband works long days. He is the main breadwinner in a job that is very well paid, think 6 figures, but only just. This means that I do the majority of nursery drop offs and pickups, however, he helps where his hours allow. We also have a dog. He is great at home on his own, but I only resort to that one day a week as a try to work my other day when my husband is off or on a shorter day.

So now, out of the blue, my firm have announced they expect people in the office 4 days per week. This will not work for me. Days will be too long, I'll be £60pw on parking, plus I will need to employ a dog walker 4 days a week. The salary no longer looks decent when you consider this.

I've heard about flexible working requests, and heard that these are considered on a case-by-case basis, but does any HR-y posters have any thoughts on the merits?

Would you be weighing up other options? Speaking to my manager, or holding my cards close to my chest?

I really don't want to leave this job, but I don't have the energy to be a mum and husband to do this, and the salary will no longer be competitive.

Redundancy is a bit fresh in the mind for me as I went through it last year and was gutted but I seem to be in a thriving company now, I work from home 3 days a week and I seem to get a lot of praise and trust so I'm hoping that this is me now until I retire in 15 to 20 years! Like our place always say, it doesn't matter if you work here or at home because the work still gets done without issue.

Jealousy isn't a good look.

You need to do what’s best for you and your family OP. You may need to consider looking for another job that gives you the flexibility you need in the contract. I know some posters are criticising you for putting your husband’s job (and family’s financial wellbeing) first but of course you should. You definitely should never put your husband’s higher earnings in peril in order to be more dedicated to your job if your earn less. Imagine, worst case scenario, if your husband lost his job because you put your job first, who would cover the shortfall, your employer certainly wouldn’t. Always remember a job has to work for both the employer and the employee. It’s about finding the right employer match for you. Never put anything in your personal or family life in jeopardy for your job, because I guarantee that, if push came to shove, your employer would get rid of you if it suited the business better without a second thought about your loyalty or sacrifices.

@Everanewbie sorry to tag you in there OP, but just to say I'm now in the exact same situation. I found out today (by accident) that my employer is demanding 60% office (up from 40%) attendance, effective from the day I return from MAT leave in several months time. I haven't been notified by my employer, but it's been on the cards for several months and I've just finalised my baby's nursery days and I've got compressed hours in place. Same situation, contract is just general 'office hub' but job advert and interview etc was put out as 40%.

Fuming doesn't cover it. We were praised non-stop during and after Covid for adapting to WFH without any loss of productivity. Now they're claiming 'collaboration' as the reason for calling us back, yet at 20% office, 40% office- virtually ALL meetings were conducted via Teams. With my compressed hours I
literally don't have any more time to piss away on commutes and still be able to do nursery runs etc.

There's a viscious and regressive anti-WFH sentiment, as seen by some of the comments here, but honestly, what's the alternative? We all no not everyone can WFH, but is it really the answer to stop everyone? We have the technology, we have the pressure to reduce carbon footprint, cost of living crisis, increased pressure on families with high housing costs forcing more and more work from both parents. I won't apologise for challenging the £120 pm extra cost and the additional 3 hours a week hit so I can turn up and do all my teams calls from a different background.

Another those who are anti-WFH forget is that if every organisation suddenly called everyone back in, the traffic on the roads would be unthinkable, people forget what the congestion and traffic jams would be like!
Another reason I'm grateful to be office based just two days a week is that ok the winter i find it hard driving in the dark because I have astigmatism in my eyes and people's headlights are blinding! Less commutes in winter keep people safer!

It's not incredibly difficult for them to fire OP at all.

"I'm terminating your contract. We will pay you until the end of the month"

Done.

''@ChesterDrawz · Today 08:30

It's not incredibly difficult for them to fire OP at all.
"I'm terminating your contract. We will pay you until the end of the month"
Done.''

I do hope you don't work in HR or run a business...

First of all they would need to give her notice based on the notice period stated in her contract and pay her accordingly.

They also need to give her the reason why she is being dismissed and follow their dismissal policy correctly.

In this case the employer might also get themselves in trouble by doing this if the OP has it in writing in her job offer letter/email that her work pattern would be 2 days a week in the office.

Also if the organisation starts firing everyone who refuses to change their work pattern and it turns out the this is affecting mainly women, those with caring responsibilities and staff with disabilities they might end up in front of an employment tribunal for discrimination...

Spot on. @ChesterDrawz clearly has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

@GiveDogBone

1. Whether an employer subsequently ends up in a legal battle doesn't negate the fact that it's not "incredibly difficult" to fire someone.
2. OP has been with the employer for 1 year. Playing silly games like "ignore" the edict is unlikely to end well for OP.

You have very valid points here, I’m in the U.K. btw as different countries have different employment laws.

However, sadly, in spite of the laws, some companies are extremely blasé about the risk of being taken to a tribunal. I worked for a company about 15 years ago which decided, after a merger, to get rid of all the senior managers and directors from one of the organisations which merged. HR actually said to me very arrogantly, “well no one’s actually going sue us are they, people don’t do that”.

I had 9 years continuous service and did start legal action. Very quickly I got a £50k award. They settled rather than being taken to a tribunal, offering the maximum I would likely get for constructive dismissal. I had to pay for a solicitor, which wasn’t cheap but still worth the investment for me at the time and luckily I could afford the outlay for legal fees. I then passed on my solicitor’s contact info to other colleagues in the same boat and one by one they all got their £50k payouts

It’s also easier for companies to get rid of people with less than 2 years service. They should still give you a reason but can still avoid it. This happened to my husband. After 17 months of service, he was told he was being “let go” and when he asked why his manager simply replied “you’re not going to be difficult now are you”. He then called and asked HR why and they just said it wasn’t performance related or redundancy and hunkered down on not providing a reason. This is a largish professional services organisation, he had a senior role, high salary above £80k. Yes they had to pay him his contractual 6 months notice but they also made him work it! Luckily he was snapped up quickly by another company. That was 8 years ago.

My advice after my own experiences is know your exact rights inside out and in detail, and always get advice from a trusted employment law expert.

@R0setheHat

And both of your examples (yours and your husband's) are far from unique.

I'm always surprised by how many MNers think 'the law' or legislation is some sort of magical force field which protects employees from employers doing as they please.

While your own payout is not to be sniffed at (well done on getting it!) I'm sure you'd agree it's not vastly different to what the redundancy payout would be for a senior role with around a decade of experience(?)

In OP's case, redundancy would be the sum total of £0, given her length of service, and I can't imagine how, in her situation, it would get anywhere near a tribunal, let alone secure a payout of any amount at all.

Exactly. In the real world, many employers deliberately calculate and come to the decision that the cost of going against employment law is better for their bottom line than sticking to the rules. It’s a numbers game and being taken to a tribunal is costed in and their company legal team is standing by, My payout was actually about £30k more than I’d have got if made redundant as it would have only been the bare statutory minimum (1 week’s pay per year service rings a bell). I also got holiday pay, could leave immediately without notice and secured an agreed glowing reference from them for the foreseeable future. Mine was a good outcome, but it really wasn’t a nice experience. It’s not pleasant to go though. Incidentally, they had also insisted leading up to my departure, that I commute each day to an office a 2 hour car journey away (1 way), even though my contract said I was based at home. Prior to that, I and other employees generally worked from home 2 days a week and commuted to other closer offices to hot desk about 3 times a week out of choice.

My DH took action against his employers when they made him redundant over the phone late one evening. They'd not made any attempt to find him alternative work in the (large) company and he'd been there for for than 25 years, only getting the statutory redundancy payment. They also claimed he'd not been willing to work abroad, though he'd been overseas for months every year and actually had an air ticket for Vietnam in his pocket when he heard he was redundant.
He told his lawyer to tell the other side that they were lying - which worried his own lawyer - but they offered him a settlement immediately, extra £20k, agreed references and they paid his legal fees.

Everyone I know who wfh does this. Some leave home and go out for the day and use their phone to answer any emails.

I don’t. I’m at my desk all day as I’m in a call centre. We are way too monitored to be able to leave our desk!
they can see what I’m doing every minute of the day

This is excellent advice!

You know some people in weird jobs then. What is the output of their job if they're not doing anything?

I think these people are by far the exception, not the rule. If they exist at all.

I don’t know anyone who does this.

What? What sort of work is this and why are they employed to do nothing?

It might be if OP had been there longer than a year...

She isn't asking the employer to look after her pet, they offered her a hybrid job and have back tracked. You get jobs that fit around your life, which is what she did. The employer did not consider the impact of their change on staff. I think it is cheeky to change the parameters and expect the employees to reorganise their life around them, especially with dependants to consider. It is a mutual transaction, not a one way one.

Neither are children in that case 🤷🏻‍♀️

I recently won my right via the flexible working request to reduce my office days from 2 to 1, as the company backtracked over the last couple of years. I'd moved 35 miles away when the policy was "whatever works for your team" and I went in once a week, since then had a child and was struggling with drop offs/pick ups at nursery if being away from home for 12 days when commuting. I also frequently get migraines since pregnancy and commuting is a trigger. Initially they closed my request saying I should apply for an exception through the internal company policy, but after much fighting with HR they acknowledged that their internal policy didn't align with the law, and the company could not prove that there would be a negative business impact from me working remotely an extra day. Especially as my office days usually consist of me sitting at a desk doing video calls with people in the US. So my advice is know your legal right and fight for it!

It is so hard nowadays to raise a child in this economy where both parents working full time is the norm and grandparents aren't a given as a help. We should all be supporting each other, not rip into people just because not every job can be done remotely. Remote working helps the environment and allows for jobs to be spread around the country rather than bringing everyone to the city. It should be encouraged.

So my advice is know your legal right and fight for it!

And my advice is RTFT.

OP has been there 1 year.

What does the 1 year have to do with anything?