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?!

People feel entitled to working from home and seem to forget that this never used to be the norm at all

Depends when you are going back to.
I wfh for over 10 years before covid.
A few streets over from where I live, there are historic 'nailers cottages' where workers literally made nails in their homes. There's 100s of years of history where people have wfh.
We now have the technology to enable most office based jobs to work from wherever they like.
Wonderful how the world evolves as it moves on, isn't it?

@CarpetKnees That's why I said 'outside the public sector' in my post.

The post I quoted hadn't specified sector.

agree it’s a mixed bag but it’s seems hard for employers to accept that while they are paying close to the same salaries as before tbe pandemic, the cost of EVERYTHING has shot up since the pandemic.
And especially in the areas mentioned like childcare, vet bills, train fares with less reliability, petrol prices and longer commute times, bus fares and longer commute times because the roads are congested again. I don’t think employees are necessarily being massively ‘entitled’ to look for ways to not lose so much money per week when housing prices to pay rent or mortgages payment and the overall cost of living like eating and heating and basic goods are at affordability crisis levels and wages haven’t really risen for 15-20 years.

My public sector employer is still offering salaries very close to 20 years ago and having a much lower headcount. Meanwhile the upper management who are on much higher salaries moan about how how they can’t attract quality candidates or retain trained staff. But those people got on the property ladder and can live much closer to the workplace way back when it cost much a lower proportion of household income to do that.

They can’t seem to accept that we are paying peanuts and we expect much harder work from staff because headcount has been reduced massively and caseload rises all the time. They can’t see that to most of the staff it is incredibly expensive to be able to afford to live in even a basic way, now. So it makes them an out of touch and unattractive employer.

Wfh also makes it much easier to contemplate part-time working.

Since the pandemic the cost of a peak time return to work for me has shot up from £36 to £59.60. Capacity is still around 60% on the train post pandemic. Costs like these make part time in person work unfeasible, even with the ‘flexible season’ offerings, unless you are earning over £50,000 full time.

@WhatTheShit I agree with you in general, but the company I work for gave an additional bonus last year on top of the target ones in contract, gave everyone extra annual leave and private health cover. We have 5 days called ‘being there’ which are paid ad hoc days for childcare/boiler breaking/carers stuff. Above inflation pay rises. So I feel like they specifically are treating people well.

In terms of industry, our peers/competitors state 3 days a week in the office, we say two. We actually seem to recruit great people because of the lower requirement but won’t do remote only.

Unofficial WFH agreements have worked very well for employers. Employees no longer having to pay the costs of being 'in the office' accepted low or no pay increases.

Now that lower pay is baked in, many employers want to have their cake and eat it. They want to keep the low pay and also force employees back into the office. If anyone complains they are told that WFH isn't a right so tough.

Many employers are doing this because they can. They perceive the pendulum has swung in their favour so flexibility, soft benefits etc get reduced.

Many employers believe fundamentally that the ideal employee is sat at their desk, head down, working constantly. Preferably wearing shirt and tie. Never wanting time off to deal with family matters. This is perceived by many employers as the status quo. Anything which isn't this is new and therefore dangerous.

A lot of management practices haven't moved on or adapted to deal with WFH. 'Productivity' is often mentioned without it being quantified.

What we will end up with is presenteeism. Then employers will wonder why flexibility has been lost, why employees are no longer willing to start early or finish late to deal with an urgent problem.

@Twilightstarbright they have the right idea -

@Crikeyalmighty eho? My employer or their competitors?