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.

I'm no HR expert, but if it is writing that the job is twos days in the office in the offer letter, then I think that can be considered part of the contract. I would definitely look into that.
Also you can request a longer term flexible working trial (ie a year) before they accept or reject the request (I'm currently doing that to do more WFH day per week).

WFH has tons of community benefits, reducing congestion, pollution and more. The benefits are in no way just for the employee

Except the OP has already said she wouldn't have accepted the job if she had to be in the office 4 days per week. She would have stayed in her fully remote job. It usually helps to read the OP in full before making comments that make you look silly.

I wouldn’t be mentioning the dog. Taking time to walk it during the working day probably isn’t going to win you any respect.

The dog is your choice not a work issue really, I don’t deny it causes extra expense but one could argue that it should be being walked by a company anyway during the working day (unless you are using your breaks).

Er... the legal right that UK employees have to make flexible working requests? I'm not sure what else you want me to say?

https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/applying-for-flexible-working

I said this at the time, but people were very naive not to get their wfh arrangements written into their contracts.

As most places are coming back to majority office work this will be much harder to get now.

Is there a union or work committee that could put forward a collective view? It’s a bummer, you have my sympathy.

Yes of course but generally it’s an unfortunate reality is that this falls with woman most of the time. Women that are extremely underpaid in statutory maternity pay and therefore forced to return to work early, and then end up needing to reduce their hours or days to do the nursery runs, manage the house etc. My point was that the working system fails women and OP’s company just expecting people to return to 4 days in the office is an example of this.

I am marginally under hrt. I pay for childcare 5 days per week.

It’s not walks really. If I do it’s lunchtime. Or immediately before or after work that is struggle with if commuting. But it’s the company for the dog. He’s a good boy but it’s not fair to leave him on his own most of the week.

Seriously, cannot begin to comprehend some of the responses on here.
OP accepted a role on the basis it worked in terms of lifestyle (regardless of the reasons). Employer is now changing the agreement, very soon after employment, which, in my view is unfair.
OP it sounds like you are not dependent on your salary, I would prioritise my child (and my dog).
I don't think you have anything to lose, have the discussion with your employer, if they say no, put in a formal flexible working request, if this is refused, raise a grievance or leave. For me it would be a hill I would be prepared to die on.

Good luck OP I hope this works out how you hope.

I get it. My DC nearly adults now but I recall the horrors of childcare costs. AS pps have said though don't bring in your CC or dog costs.

I'd def say you offered me the job 2 days - I wouldn't have taken it otherwise. They say no, send it again. If still no ask for 3 days with payrise. If still no, look elsewhere. best of luck to you

I’ve only read the first 2 pages of the thread but I’m surprised at the responses.

As someone on page 2 said, as the 2 day hybrid arrangement was explained to you and you accepted on that basis, I would start from the point that this does form part of your contract. I’m not an HR professional or employment lawyer but I am a lawyer (my employment law experience is almost 20 years old though!). It doesn’t have to be written in your contract for it to be a term of your employment, the fact that you’ve done it since you started and it’s written in emails can be enough. When my OH was given a company car that packed in and it was then taken away, it wasn’t written into his contract but as it was something that had happened afterwards it was deemed to be a contractual term and something they had to continue to provide.

If I were in your position I would:

1. respond to whatever email you’ve had about 4 days in the office to ask simply for confirmation that this doesn’t apply to you because you were offered hybrid 2 days a week. Don’t go into any reasons at this stage, you don’t want to in essence accept that you should be in for more than your 2 days. If you can find your offer email and your response, attach those to your email.
2. if they reply and say you’re included in the expectation to come in for 4 days, you need to reply with your reasons as to why you don’t agree and can’t - like you’ve explained already you wouldn’t have accepted the job if you’d been told it was 4 days in the office, say your childcare is arranged around it etc.
3. if they respond to say you still have to come in 4 days, you need to reply with what you need and want from them to agree ie a salary increase to cover a childminder and parking fees etc, if you’re willing to actually do that.

See if your home contents insurance covers legal fees for employment law matters and perhaps get some proper advice too (or just pay for it).

In reality if it is a term of your employment to work from home 2 days a week (which I think it is) then they’d have to put you through a consultation to change that, which it doesn’t appear they have done.

I wouldn’t be getting into the realms of flexible working requests etc as by doing that you’re agreeing you are required to go in for the 4 days as they’ve asked. I think some of the advice you’ve been given on this thread is way off employment law quite honestly.

Seriously, cannot begin to comprehend some of the responses on here.

Most responses are sympathetic to OP's position (some are taking issue with the suggested approaches from other posters e.g. that OP should make a request on a health / disability basis). However, equally, most are pragmatically recognising that if her contract has her place of work as the office, this poses an issue if she wants to challenge working onsite 4 days a week.

Of course, in terms of reasonableness, as I pointed out, the fact that the email and other communication did offer more of a hybrid role, works in her favour in terms of the conversation she can have with the decision-maker in this instance (which is not the boutique employer but the larger company that has taken over).

However, if the company want to hold firm, she has limited options - certainly she can put in a request, she can continue to state her position but she may have to accept the change or leave the role.

But companies should care.
If they want to keep the staff that are important to them, then they shouldn’t do things like this. Decisions should be outcome based, and this may well have been, but it hasn’t been properly communicated to OP. If she understood the reasons it might help her come up with a suitable flexible working request.
people are allowed to walk the dog or hang their washing out on their lunch break.

I would be very annoyed in your position, OP. As you said, you gave up a fully remote job for this one and couldn’t have done so if not for the assurances at interview.

If you have something written in your offer letter - even if it’s not in your contract - I’d push back and see what they say. Make clear you would not have accepted this job given your caring responsibilities without this verbal assurance.

I know it’s of no help to the OP but I do think it’s a salutary lesson to anyone considering a job offer to look closely at the contractual conditions. If employers verbally promise a given benefit to get you to accept the role then make sure it’s documented (unless it wouldn’t sway your decision).

Going back to the OP, I think you are totally justified at feeling aggrieved at the goalposts being moved. I guess the thing to consider is could/would you walk over it? If you would, I’d be clear on this. Otherwise, I’d go in a bit more softly-softly.

I would phone ACAS and ask them whether two days being in your offer letter counts contractually. And of course it is right to be upset when you have taken a job that fits around family life and all of a sudden it doesnt. The parameters changed so ignore the judgey bitter people who make themselves feel better by blaming you.

It doesn’t have to be written in your contract for it to be a term of your employment

This could be true.

But it's not clear and we can't say without seeing the contract.

If the contract is clear that her place of work is the office, and if it includes (as mine does) a stipulation like 'duties as mandated by the [name of person in charge' or along those lines, then it is clear contractually that her position of work is in the office.

From a reasonableness point of view, which organisations should care about, it is of course reasonable that OP would have expected the hybrid working conditions that were set out in the initial discussions and offers would be held to.

I think if you have an email with a job offer stating you were expected to work 2 days per week in the office you can attempt to argue they are changing the terms of your employment. I wouldn't put in a flexible working request, unlike everyone else has recommended, as to do so indicates you are agreeing that to work 2 days a week at home is a change to your existing terms.

I would first go down the line of arguing that your terms already include that, and they cannot change them without your consent (which you do not give).

If this fails (which it might, but I think it's worth a shot) then I would look at a flexible working request.

Generally speaking though, I think it's best to ensure these things are set in stone in a contract. We all know how often WFH is abused and employers across the board are keen to see an end to it. Be armed and ready with compromises to improve culture - can you be free for a fixed weekly meeting with relevant team members in person once a week during your 2 days in? Are you willing to do alternate weeks of 2/4 days in the office? Could you work in office for 2 full days and 2 half days with afternoons at home? Would you be willing to do 3 days every week? Have solutions ready.

Urgh, I hate things like this - just creating problems for the sake of it. I hope you and your colleagues do vote with your feet - next time you know to get something in your contract. And that any who remain, take the companies new policy around flexible working on board, when they are considering whether they are too ill to go to work / have been asked to rearrange their holiday so they can be in the office for something they "need" to be at.

Equally grating, the attitude from fellow workers, of "my job is difficult and I have to commute for hours at a time and have no work/life balance, so I want everyone else to have as hard a time of it as possible too". Rather than pushing for their own jobs to be less shit 🙄

May be a good idea to look on threads for advice for parents who both go out to work.

My DH wfh and I was full time with 45 minute drive each day. He also had to do trips away and couldn't look after DC when wfh of course.

Unfortunately the only option was nursery and the breakfast and after school clubs. It wasn't ideal at all so I changed my job and hours so I could help with school drop offs. Less income but was the best thing for us. Xx

The contract could say her place of work is Timbuktu but if she’s been working in an office in Birmingham 2 days a week and the other 3 days at home then the contract is for the office 2 days a week and home 3 days a week. Contracts, including employment contracts, are not only the document called ‘contract’.

Not sure why people are talking ACAS.

OP has been there for 1 year. Even if the contract said 4 days WFH she's on a hiding to nothing.

Poor annual results led to a drive on culture. Collaboration

Yes, I expected it would be linked to results, but if they perceive these were affected by WFH why did you say the collaboration thing was "bullshitty"?

I totally get your difficulties with this, but it sounds a pretty legitimate business reason to me

'Play the health card' that is totally wrong.

Disabled and chronically ill people have to fight for adjustments. It gets more difficult for people with genuine illness or disabilities have to contend with others claim non existant health issues.