Hybrid Working Policy help needed

[jamcorrosion]

Hi - my job has a policy as above, states to be in the office for 3 days a week, with an option to submit a form for unforeseen circumstances. The policy states that the focus is on days not hours spent in the office per day but the expectation is that majority of the day is spent in office when there. There’s no definition of ‘majority’ so I’ve assumed it means more than 50%. This policy has been in place a year. Recently received an email from a senior member of staff to the whole team stating that when in the office we are expected to be there for a full day.

Since this policy was introduced - I arranged my childcare around it. My son is in nursery 7.30-5.30 daily (I’m a single parent) I chose these hours so I could get to the office early. Usually around 8.15/30, I stay until lunchtime which is four hours and then head home. I do this as I thought it was better to travel home on my unpaid hour than later in the afternoon on works time.

Since receiving the email I have reached out and explained my usual routine and asked for clarification if this is no longer ok. I have been told it is no longer ok and I cannot leave at lunchtime consistently only occasionally for appointments etc. Apparently this was clarified with HR before I was given a response. Where do I stand here as the policy doesn’t state full days? I have offered to stay till later in the afternoon and explained why I chose lunchtime. Also explained that I can’t stay till later than 4pm really due to traffic and nursery pick up.

I’m just not sure where I stand or how to handle? As the policy is not specific at all. Can the goalposts be changed like this?

IABU - Suck it up
IANBU - This isnt ok to just change it

To think you can leave at lunchtime every time is pretty crazy and very much not in the spirit of a reasonable and sensible policy - you are definitely unreasonable there.
However they should be flexible on letting you leave an hour early if you’re getting in an hour early.

I get you @jamcorrosion . Unfortunately replies like from @SweetHydrangea are probably why wfh is slowly disappearing, some people still can’t accept that working from home could actually mean working!
The same thing is happening at my office, we were told they want everyone back 4 days a week which has led to a lot of unhappiness

Just so you know, a lot of mumsnet hate WFH so you’ll not get much sympathy. I don’t know if it’s jealousy or that they had to put their kids in childcare for 12 hours a day so they think everyone should. Always comes across quite spiteful especially in a time where commuting costs are sky high, wages are rubbish and childcare is through the roof.

I’d seek advice from your union or ACAS.

Even on days I wfh my child is in nursery, I find it impossible to work and watch him too as he wants attention all day.. but wfh means I save the commuting time and over lunch I can pop a load of laundry in or run a quick errand…or receive my packages.. I also have less meetings and more time to focus on my to do list

Yes but the majority of mumsnet had it hard and don’t want other Mothers having a better work life balance than they did. WFH to a lot of people is apparently a doss and we should all commute hours for additional to poorly paid jobs and stick our kids in care all day.

Honestly the comments on here. WFH has allowed more women to stay in the workplace. A lot of these policies in all honesty seem to be from companies who want to reduce headcount without paying severance. A lot of these companies have enjoyed not giving their staff payrises in line with inflation due to WFH countering people’s personal costs. If people aren’t working, that’s usually a managerial issue not a WFH issue. A piss taker will take the piss in office or at home. You’ll usually find they’re the ones who bang on about culture and spend their entire day boring you with their life stories.

It wouldn't even occur to me that being in the office for a day meant I could swan off after lunch.

OPs policy used to be based on hours not days. It’s recently changed.

Congratulations on managing to stay under the radar for a year, but doing so does not create an ongoing right.

Oh, no - to be clear you can absolutely request flexible working as per the law.
It’s just that they also have everyday flexibility as well in that you can basically do whatever hrs you want as long as it works for your team. Yesterday I did 7-3:30 in the office, didn’t need approval from anyone. What I wouldn’t be able to do (without proper approval) would be to say “my hours are now 7-3:30 every day so I won’t be attending any meetings after 3:30 ever”. Or what OP is trying which is “I’m never in the office in the afternoons”.

As a poster pointed out, the reference to days rather than hours was to counteract those doing long hours and so fewer days.

I rely dint believe that the trend to return to work has anything to do with enjoying making staff life miserable but very much because too many people took the piss and just didn't perform their job properly. Managing staff that involves spying on them to check they are indeed working is wasting management resources so it makes sense that companies are introducing return to work. It's not even like it is 5 days for most. Being able to work even one day from home once a fortnight or even month used to feel like a privilege.

It is so unfair to those who did do their full hours, with no distraction, sadly too many didn't and ruined for everyone. OP does sound like one who extended the liberty too far.

'The majority' doesn't mean 'over 50%'. It means 'almost all of'. So for a year you've got away with not following the policy - your employer is now pulling you up on it at making you follow the policy as per everyone else.

You need to change your nursery arrangements so you can work whole days (give or take a few minutes) in the office 3 times a week as the policy requires and has always required.

It didn’t used to be based on hours at all. The policy used to be a very casual “2-3 days per week”, and because they found out that the average amount of time in the office was less than 2 days, it all got changed to a formal policy with 3 days minimum. As someone else has said, the reason they’ve not done it on an hours basis is because some people would do 21 hours in the office over 2 days in order to hit the target.
PwC is actually very flexible about most things - and as the OP is now allowed to leave at 3pm I think that shows that. I’d also add here that this formal policy is very much the current Chairman’s “thing” - it will be interesting to see if anything changes when there is a new one in 2.5 years time.

Thanks for all your comments!

Train is no use really - the train I need there is only one an hour and not very reliable so not really an option.

I’ve had approval to leave at 3 instead so problem is solved - I didn’t want to create any major issues I love my job and glad we’ve come to a compromise.

Glad it’s sorted!

Doing "the majority of the day" in is usually taken to mean a core hours type approach where the first and last hour of the day can be flexed a bit on occasion, id usually expect someone in between 10 & 4 as a minimum. I also wouldn't expect you to be routinely expecting to leave early every single day - the flexibility is usually there to accomodate occasional train delays or appointments, not people who don't want to pay for childcare covering working hours + commute.

You can't just do 3 half days and call it 3 days. What an absolute piss take.

We don’t have core hours. I do pay for childcare and I don’t do 3 half days a week, I continue to work in the afternoon.

Compromise has been agreed now anyway

If you leave at 3, i still don't get where you are making up the extra hour? Or are you going in at 8.00 & taking a shorter lunch to do your 7.5 hours then leaving at 3?

Unfortunately I've had terrible experiences with people saying they will routinely make hours up in the evening. Hardly anyone does this properly, consistently, in the long term. Then you get people saying they are working an hour or two 3.30- 5.30 when actually they have the kids after school and won't ever take a call in that time, and are tokenistically online.

I find it frustrating as I really want to offer flexibility (i need it too) but thwarted by people who in reality only really want to work part time hours but be paid a full time wage. I'd be fine with them going part time but they don't want to.

I’m taking the time at 3pm as my lunch.

Theres no issues here with making up hours to the letter - we are trusted to do the job and it works. I have a very good reputation at work I’m not behind I’m never uncontactable. I’ve just been given a new opportunity based on my reputation.

We aren’t micro managed to the tune of making sure hours are worked to the exact minute - we are all grown ups and we get the job done. If someone is taking the mick then it’s dealt with. I’ve asked for clarification and got it - we have come to a compromise. We will see if it works or if it doesn’t and if it affects my client negatively then back to the drawing board. I’ll be in the office the rest of the week so we will see.

I don’t know why everyone is so hung up on that half day thing - I do actually work full time, probably more than full time hours each week! Being at home doesn’t mean I’m not working.

I actually really like my job - I don’t have an issue coming to a different agreement if it’s not working.

This is something that will change depending on my current client.

I spent 6 months of 2024 spending Mon/Tues in London, I would travel down early Mon AM then back home for pick up Tues PM. I’d leave the office around 2pm and continue work on the train home. The needs change with each client.

Late last year I spent 3 days a week in Liverpool - again leaving the office early to get back for pickup.

My current client has no travel requirements.

Yes I just based it on the policy wording which is clearly open for interpretation.

Yes they’re really flexible and supportive so I didn’t wanna take the piss - hence reaching out for clarification. It’s all been agreed now which is great. Likely to change as client does anyway

I am guessing someone has complained about it ans it is the reaskn why the policy changed
In my work we are expected to work 3 days in the office, two at home if we take a day off when we are in the office we have to go to the office instead of working from home. Nothing is mentionned in our contract about it but ww have been told it is the rulea and if not respected we will lose the Wfh option.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. Probably someone who is just a moaner or has a dislike to the OP.

I do however understand some resentment if people are travelling during the working day and the perception they could be working shorter hours.

It wasn’t aimed at me it was a full team email. This only came about as I reached out for clarification.

It’s a very flexible company - there’s lots of people in and out or on client visits, what I do isn’t especially uncommon so doubt there’s resentment.

They’ve agreed to 3pm as a compromise so it’s all sorted

3 days office means 3 full days. You say you cannot stay past 4pm but if you get to work at around 8.15 and stay to 4 its a full day so im not sure I see where the issue is.

"Usually around 8.15/30, I stay until lunchtime which is four hours and then head home. I do this as I thought it was better to travel home on my unpaid hour than later in the afternoon on works time."

I'm not sure why you would travel home later in the afternoon on works time, surely commute is in n your own time.

Anyway, I would expect when they say you should be there the majority of the day they mean all day with exception of e.g. dental appointments, not that you can just head home at lunchtime.

Oh come on OP, days isn’t ambiguous at all. Let’s say you’re entitled to 25 ‘days’ holiday a year, are you expecting them to pay you a full 7.5 hours for each of them or would you be absolutely fine for them to just pay you 4 hours? I mean they’ve paid you what you consider to be ‘a day’!