AIBU to think if your boss wants you in the office, they should help pay to get you there?

[bigred26]

Barclays has delayed moving UK staff from two to three office days after thousands asked for help with commuting costs, and TSB staff are reportedly preparing legal action over a similar plan. In one survey, 29% of UK office workers said a subsidised commute would get them in more often.

One side says more office days is effectively a pay cut. The other says getting to work has always been the employee's cost.

Should employers chip in, or is that just part of having a job?

They don’t just chip in, they cover the full cost. With the thing they call your salary.

But you said it wasn’t true that it’s taxable and it can be tax exempt on the employer.

It was true.

It is tax deductible for the employer, but subject to employer NIC and taxable on the employee.

I've no idea why you quoted me and then answered a question I didn't ask about people moving jobs.
Regardless, post-covid if your contract is hybrid without specifying the number of office days, you made your choice - suck it up. My contract switched to hybrid as has changed from 'come in if you want' to 'come in 2 days' to 'our target is 3 days'. My salary didn't reduce at any point so why would I have any expectation of it increasing as the number of office days does.
If the terms don't suit you, find a role with terms that do.
What next, employer has to pay for my meal because lunch is in the middle of my working day?

COVID really spoiled office workers then...

I don’t live in London that’s the problem - I live out in the suburbs because I can’t afford to live in London.

i was born and bred in an area in zone 5 and had to move 30 miles away to somewhere affordable. There are no jobs near me that pay anywhere near my London salary

This is the most Gen Z thing I’ve ever heard. Have you forgotten about how everyone was expected in the office 5 days a week? Pre-covid? We just paid and went to work and did our jobs…imagine!

One side says more office days is effectively a pay cut. The other says getting to work has always been the employee's cost.

I think both are true, Traditionally it was up,to the employees to get themselves to work but things have changed. Before Covid my employers were emphatic that the job could not be done remotely but within weeks - amazing! They found not only that it could be done but that it worked well.

But they key point was that they could now hire people from all around the country, We had had people before who lived far away filling posts, but they had to make extraordinary efforts to travel and stay for part of the week near the office.

So changing back to requiring people to be in more would change the basis on which people were hired. But I should add that it’s quite pressured and responsible work where it’s not possible to pretend to work: failures would be public and accountable.

Funnily enough the employers are reducing office space, too, to save costs.

In normal jobs it is the employee's responsibility to get themselves to work

If your contract says you're based at home that's a different matter.

But I don't think that's what these contracts say is it.

No, the employer should not pay travel costs. They are the employee's responsibility. Also, if employers did pay (as with cars) then it is a benefit in kind and would be taxable.

With AI around the corner, its Boss "Jump", Employee "How high, Boss". Just get there.

Nope, the only thing that matters is the terms and conditions. If I go to the office, I can claim mileage expenses. Very normal in my admin role.

Actually… Mileage reimbursements and allowances are not taxable in the UK as long as they stay at or below the official tax-free limits set by HMRC.

Many of us wfh and claim mileage when we have to go into an office.

If people refuse to go into the office it’s likely companies will speed up AI adoption and off shoring.

Ok, I am related to a Barclays worker who was employed with a contract that requires them to be in the office 2 days a week.

This office can be ANY Barclays office, so they go into the local Barclays bank - they actually go in 5 days a week because it's cheaper than putting their own heating on (winter) and it's air conditioned. Plus, they can cycle there.

Their work doesn't need them to interact in person with anyone on a day to day basis. If they need to attend a meeting in head office, they get their travel costs reimbursed.

Now, they've been asked to go into London 3 days a week. 3 hours per day extra travelling, extra costs and loss of family life.

You bet they're holding out for renegotiation of their contract!

Are you writing an article or something? Why haven’t you returned to the thread OP nor given your own view on the subject?

Heaven forbid we should make things easier for working people people, I mean barclays only has an annual profit of $34 billion, who knows what they could make if their office staff came in for that extra day.

It depends what was agreed. If when you signed up, it was agreed you were in 2 days, and they want you in more, it seems fair for them to pay.
But most jobs were traditionally in all the time, and commuting costs were on you.
I suppose it's difficult if there's a change in a job you're already in, because travelling is more difficult and costly than it was.
It's like if it was agreed you could always leave at 2.25 to collect the kids, suddenly changing that would not only be difficult, but an extra cost, and if the terms were agreed upon, it seems unfair. And I can't wfh, so not a personal gripe.

My partner works at one of those companies and hasn't been to the office since COVID. If he had to we would need a season ticket loan, as would thousands of others, that's why they are stalling.

Exactly, all these Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Quite. The union is working really well on this one to renegotiate contracts, salaries and terms.

It depends on their terms of employment. If they were hired as remote workers, it’s fair to say their salary would have reflected that. If they now have to commute, the employer should pay. My contract states where my place of work is for the purposes of claiming expenses, and that’s my office because I was hired pre-Covid. My last job had my place of work as being my home address. If they asked me to come to the office (which was 300 miles away) I claimed expenses. If the office was 20 miles away, I still could have claimed expenses.

The issue is that some people moved away from their base office. I told many not to do that because the return to office work was always likely but they went ahead anyhow. Now they realise the cost of moving back or paying for a season ticket is significant, they’re acting surprised.
Then there is the free childcare situation. They can juggle pickups at 3pm when working at home but not when back in the office. I am quite agog at people taking calls in the car while collecting children or running errands. I’m hearing of schools closing after school clubs as no-one uses them.
A correction was always likely.

So you have zero actual experience of working from home?

I can’t understand why office jobs need people to commute into the office at all surely they would save a fortune if they didn’t have to pay rates, rentals and utilities for bricks and mortar offices?

I think that a lot of people are in for a nasty shock if they think that they can force their employers hand in this if they have a typical contract that stipulates that their main place of work is the office.

The economy is shifting rapidly and becoming an employer market, so good luck to those that are in easily replaceable jobs that think they can hold out on this.