To think if you moved out to the countryside during Covid, you can't demand remote working?

[JacquesHarlow]

Before I get piled on, the key word here is demanding remote working based on their lifestyle choices, and therefore going against an employer's setup (mandated hybrid or full 5 day wees).

The number of people I have interacted with in the last year who feel entitled to fully remote and flexible now, never coming in, because they took a gamble five years ago and relocated outside of where the work is....is staggering.

Let me rewind for a minute -

I understand from the ACAS site etc that people are legally allowed to request flexible working. But surely employers are equally allowed to turn it down or request a modified version (you have to come in X days). So why do so many people moan about this, as if they're entitled to fully remote?

I guess the answer lies in the pandemic.

For desk based jobs such as mine and many others, we were able to work remotely in Covid-19 office lockdowns. Many people reported increased productivity. We could work variable hours, walk the dog at lunchtime, pick up the DCs and then jump on Teams calls. No need to pay expensive £6k a year season tickets, less money spend on childminding to cover the commute etc.

However these couple of years also saw all kind of people look at what their flat or house inside the M25 was worth, cash in, and then flee to all points of the compass in the UK, using their strong London pound so to speak to buy up all kinds of acreage in Frome, Weymouth, Cambridgeshire, you name it.

Where I'm struggling is how many people I've seen on here will say "I've applied to a job which is clearly stated 4 days a week in person in the office. Does anyone work here and can say how firm this is, can I demand it be remote? I live 2.5 hours away from London and it'll cost me £70 a day" etc."

Why though? Does an employer have to throw its office policy out the window every time someone who moved away from London wants the same salary and access to the job market, but won't come in on their terms anymore?

Am I being unreasonable to say that people are being unrealistic about this?

Do any of you think that we should be able to request fully remote when applying for a job, no matter what the employer's policy is? And that it is "discrimination" if they don't?

I mean, one person on here was told by a prospective employer that they need to be mindful not to have their toddler crying out too much while they're on Teams calls with clients. The job seeker then got upset in their post and said "I don't think this job is for me"...

Has COVID completely changed people's expectations that they should be able to do it all with a toddler on their lap?

AIBU?!

I’m responsible for about 250 people as
part of a much bigger financial services company (household/high street name). We have offices in London, a Home Counties city and another big UK city. We state 2 days a week in the office, the rest can be at home.

-I have a few very specialist senior people, maybe 5 in total who do not come in and are so niche it would take more than a year to replace them.

-I have a few we are having to have informal conversations with that they cannot be ‘busy’ during every school run as part of the role is being contactable by customers 9-5. There’s a few we’ve had to go down a more formal route about not being able to work whilst doing childcare (for under7s)

-I have more risk events happen at home

-I have some wonderful employees who work hard and are an asset to my department and WFH 90% of the time due to health issues. They do not try to look after young children at the same time.

-I have about 20 people who live 20 min from one office site who came in 5 days a week before Covid and now say 20 min is too far. They have dogs and don’t want to leave them or pay for afterschool club. They are starting a performance management route for this.

-I am offshoring some roles to India because if it can be done remotely I can do it abroad. Not all roles are suitable but certainly our admin ones can.

It’s a mixed bag and I do find some people are very entitled and also don’t want to pay for commuting/dog care/childcare but are happy to be paid our London/south east salary!

Sounds like a minefield, with people abusing the system.

True! A good example - I was working for a publishing company in the 2010s, and the company started outsourcing the proofreading to a company in India instead of using local freelancers, to save on costs. But then the publisher would have to send it to me to re-do the work as there were so many mistakes!

@Steelworks a complete minefield! I have to be stricter than I would like to be because of a few CFs. I have an 8 year old, so I get I really do. I try to accommodate sports day, class assemblies etc but I can’t pay people to be contactable 9-5 for our customers when they do school runs and aren’t contactable for 90 mins a day and have young children present 4-5pm. There are some roles which are much more flexible and as long as the work is done I am less bothered by the hours they choose to work.

You literally said though that you 'negotiated the salary' - so you decided what it would take for you to work there.

London weightings are for people who are on a fixed salary scale but the imbalance of living costs (particularly housing) means that you won't be able to find anyone to do the job in London for the same salary as someone doing the same job elsewhere.
So a teacher or a Police Officer who could get a mortgage in most parts of the country with 2 adults on their salary, probably can't in London, hence the London weighting is in theory there to help. London weighting aren't old fashioned, they are there for the many, many people can't 'negotiate their salary'.

Do you have any evidence that 'many people abuse it' or is that just a hyperbolic opinion ?

@CarpetKnees I shared my experiences of people taking the piss earlier this afternoon.

I don't think it works like that. Very few minimum wage people (which is where the real deprivation lies) would be in a "work from home" role. Most would be cleaners, maintenance workers, window cleaners, canteen staff, self employed food vendors etc. In fact a whole blue colour infrastructure would thrive if an office block or factory unit was opened in their area. A few people WFH in a highly paid role in a desirable village aren't going to help the local economy.

Anecdotally, there absolutely are some individuals @Twilightstarbright but, anecdotally, there are also examples on this thread about people being able to do so much more due to the fact they work from home.
I can give you a list of all my team members who achieve so much more at home than in the office. I can give you examples over decades in the workplace of the odd person who seems to do very little work whilst in the workplace.
But Jennps is making wild claims about "most people".

But equally they don’t have 2 hour commutes because their employer shut their local office/ their skills are rare….!

TBH I’d rather get a minimum wage job than commute to my London office 3 times a week.

I agree that those who WFH during covid shouldn’t be demanding to continue to do that now. But I had friends who moved from London back to their home down during Covid as it was cheaper to buy a house there, I asked what would happen if they weren’t allowed to WFH after Covid cleared up, all said they would just get a new job. Wasn’t really an issue and still isn’t an issue. Most just need to go in one day per month. Most employers now realise that WFH is beneficial to the company as they don’t need a physical office plus all the other expenses it costs to run it. I don’t really care as it doesn’t affect me doing my job but I can see the appeal to it.

Those who moved in 2020 or 2021 thinking full time wfh would be permanent have little sympathy from me. I do however have some if wfh continued a lot longer, or where a job was advertised since with a level of wfh or hybrid working and the requirements have been changed.

I think a fair amount of the drive to 4 or 5 days a week in an office has been because of managers not being willing to deal with the slackers, the poor performers, those who do as little as they can get away with. The benefits of face to face conversation at work can easily be achieved in many jobs with one or two days a week in an office.

The expensive and in the case of rail poor public transport makes going to an office less attractive, and for those who drive, the many people on the road who I would ban from driving and never return their licence to them.

I’ll demand remote working for whatever reason I please.

This is the wrong comparison though, because there's no reason to suppose a factory unit or office block would open in a deprived area as an alternative to wfh. There isn't an option where you get to choose between a factory and some remote workers.

We were already seeing significant centralisation of office work well before widepread remote working kicked in. Many towns and smaller cities who lost lots of offices in the last 40 years or so. Those offices would not be springing back up if people were doing less wfh. That model had already gone.

The relevant question is whether a deprived area is better off with only cleaners, maintenance workers etc and anyone wanting to do office work has to commute, or with those jobs plus remote work.

Pre 1945 many people worked a six day week. Expectations change.

Those people who say they will look for wfh-only jobs will get a culture shock if they look for a new job. These jobs are fast vanishing, and most jobs state 2-3 days working in the office. In reality, the companies may be more flexible, but they’ve stated it in their job advertisements to cover themselves.

Do you think perhaps some of those people might know more about their roles and sector than you do, and thus not be particularly concerned by vague generalisations?

Yes this is true as well.

Well quite. The key to getting employment isn’t mindless office attendance, it’s having skills and experience the business needs. It really is as simple as that.

Yep also the colleagues that now have babies/children and/or pets - demanding to WFH because they need to look after their kids / can’t afford nursery / school pick ups? / whos going to walk the dog?
It’s utterly ridiculous

Some people with kids etc may not be able to work to the same extent without wfh. Previously women ( mainly women) in my sector would work part time and this sector is one with national shortage of skilled workforce. now they can go full time. So this js great for women, single parents and disabled people. Other people can polish their halos and self congratulate themselves for staying on the corporate hamster wheel and network in person. Everyone can be happy.

Maybe they can’t afford extended childcare it is expensive.maybe their kids can’t cope with extended long childcare. Maybe they can’t afford to live near work. All possible. As long as you are ok! Do you think then they should resign or try to ask for wfh if that is the choice.

@Twilightstarbright I agree - it’s very role dependent and performance dependent too - there are some roles that it’s quite hard to monitor or quantify and in some cases too management ( but not owners) who are also happy to take advantage.

As a co owner of a small business I'm often surprised at how many people on MN insist they're only being asked back simply for presenteeism or "bums on seats" without considering there might be a genuine business reason or need to have people in the workplace.

Why don't you support businesses supporting working parents? Why don't you support parents being able to pick up their children up at a reasonable time? Do you support long commutes and children in lengthy after school care?

What about people caring for elderly parents? Fuck the parents? Fuck the employee? It doesn't have to be that way.