Pressured to return to office but cases rising locally. Where is their duty of care?

[Nutsoh]

Despite WFH successfully since last March we’ve been told over the past few weeks that our offices now have to be manned to 50% in a bid to transition back to full occupancy.

Some managers have turned the thumbscrews on their teams to —force— encourage part of their departments back, they’ve pushed the teams that have a lot of static equipment back in FT and allowed those with laptops the benefit of coming and going when they please with their laptops.

Despite the 2m rule we are allowed to sit in the office, anything up to 10 of us without masks, just needing to put masks on to walk around. There is a one way system but the kitchen is a free for all and you can go into the toilet right after someone else has just used it even though ventilation is poor.

So, I didnt have too much of an issue with this but cases are now rising locally and I feel it’s only a matter of time that it’s going to go through the office. We’ve all had at least one jab but I’m starting to feel a little anxious about someone getting it and it running through the whole building.

So, from a duty of care POV, if someone gets Covid through work and it leaves them seriously I’ll or with long Covid where does that leave the company legally seeing as they’ve more or less forced people back in despite the guidance still being to WFH if you can.

Can people take action against their company if this happens?

you said something like 'op your bosses are clearly making a business case

I don’t think I did.

When you have no clue if this is forming part of the decision.

I don’t. However it’s a reasonable assumption that they look at it (lol) and it plays a role in decisions making.

Which it's why the op can and should question it. It may only take a couple to out a good case forward and they either reduce the recall or decide a new plan.

She can. I just doubt it’ll have any impact. Lots of employers are seeking advice on how to manage the Covid return, they’ll have their strategies.

Yes and I disagreed and pointed the basis for your point was based on your own assumptions.

As is everyone’s, welcome to MN.

Oh and you also said her employers 'won't be questioned'. When you know nothing of the sort

Have you read the actual government documents? It’s full of get out clauses for those who want them.

I guess you’ll have to prove that they caught Covid in the workplace, and not elsewhere, which could be difficult to prove. Even if someone else had gone down with covid, could you prove you caught it from them, and not the local supermarket?

If everyone in an office contracts covid within a week it may be all the evidence that is needed. Unless covid cases are very very high in the area it's unlikely that everyone caught elsewhere that week. The DVLA didn't persuade anyone that their workers all picked it up elsewhere for example.

I don’t think I did.

You did.

I don’t. However it’s a reasonable assumption that they look at it (lol) and it plays a role in decisions making.

Its an assumption and I can assure you many business leaders have made decisions like this without looking at any data. And the decision wouldn't stand up to questioning. Even from employees.

She can. I just doubt it’ll have any impact. Lots of employers are seeking advice on how to manage the Covid return, they’ll have their strategies.

You said they won't be questioned. Unless you are the owner of the company, I don't know how you can know that at all.

If everyone in an office contracts covid within a week it may be all the evidence that is needed. Unless covid cases are very very high in the area it's unlikely that everyone caught elsewhere that week. The DVLA didn't persuade anyone that their workers all picked it up elsewhere for example.

I agree, they would need to prove its very likely they picked it up at work.

@Wellbythebloodyhell

Suck it up buttercup some have been working in such "conditions " and in many cases worse conditions all the way through. Welcome to reality!

this kind of response is so unhelpful and incredibly rude.

People WFH keep cases lower. Which protects everyone. It's not hard.

@ everybodysang - yes, agree 100%.

We can all have a different view of the way that the OP should respond to her situation, but saying "suck it up buttercup. Welcome to reality!" is both pointless and rude. I see that MN has even had to delete comments in this thread - ridiculous really given the non-combative way the OP raised the topic.

Also (hopefully) this is not OP's "reality". It may be the "reality" of some, it is certainly not mine.

Threads like this always bring the sadists out.

@TheKeatingFive

it will be hard for employers to demonstrate that there were good business reasons if the business has done well even though employees have worked at home for over a year.

It won’t, they’d just reference future growth strategies. Or the difference in customer expectations at the height versus coming out of a pandemic. Or holding it together short term versus long term. I could go on.

And no there won’t be any legal precedents set. Where would that end? Someone like OP wins a case despite being vaccinated, in an office of 10 people, and suddenly the floodgates are opened to everyone who worked as normal or close to since 2020, including everyone employed by the nhs or the department for education, with a much better case than the OP. Madness.

It won't be everyone. It would only be those who were forced to go to the office for no good reason (so not NHS workers or teachers) and who became seriously ill or died as a result of an outbreak of covid in the workplace. Do you really think that no employer is going to end up in court?

@MrsLCSofLichfield

Threads like this always bring the sadists out.

Like pensioners on YouGov who want to bring back the National Service they never did for today's teenagers.

A couple of weeks back in the office and my brother's employer now has several people off sick with it, one in hospital, and more or less everybody else self-isolating.

How's that for an improvement to productivity - eh?! And the office is empty again.

👏👏👏

*But it does. Because the theory 'other people have had to go back/work outside the home during this/are at risk' is nothing to do with the OP, but is saying others have to so she should. It's the same with a flexible working request. You could have one granted and work completely different to someone doing the same job, I'm the same company. And that still would have no impact on who should work what or where.

Thats not how employment works, we don't all work the same.

Why would you have issue with someone working differently, to other people now. If you don't have an issue with flexible working requests?*

Because the point is that the employer wants staff who were sent home to work during the height of the pandemic back in the workplace.

Why should people like the OP continue to work from home when their employer now requires them to return to work from the office to meet the needs of the business?

This has got nothing to do with flexible working requests in general. This isn't a flexible working request. This is an employee resisting returning to the office just because they fancy staying at home no longer. No request has been made for flexible working. The employer just wants staff back to their usual place of work.

And yes, plenty of people have managed to work throughout the pandemic in very difficult situations, long before covid secure workplaces was a thing and even during times when masks weren't deemed necessary. So it is possible. I'm not saying everyone should do it purely because some have had to. Some employers are obviously happy for this to continue. But some aren't.
There's no need to be mardy about going back to the office as long as measures are in place to protect staff.

@PrincessNutNuts exactly. Not only is it hugely risky from an HR point of view.

Its hugely risky to the productivity of the company. Which means its risky to the profit.

Unless staff wfh is several damaging the business, its a very poor business decision.

One of my teams has 3 people. If they went back and all got sick, non of their work would get done which has a huge knock on effect to the rest of the business. All 3 are very unlikey to all get sick at the same time, if they are all working from home.

@Meredithisgrey

This has nothing to do with flexible working requests. Anybody can and should be able to make a request to work flexibly. But it was never going to work for certain businesses to allow their whole workforce to stay at home forever off the back of a pandemic 🤷🏼‍♀️

But it does. Because the theory 'other people have had to go back/work outside the home during this/are at risk' is nothing to do with the OP, but is saying others have to so she should. It's the same with a flexible working request. You could have one granted and work completely different to someone doing the same job, I'm the same company. And that still would have no impact on who should work what or where.

Thats not how employment works, we don't all work the same.

Why would you have issue with someone working differently, to other people now. If you don't have an issue with flexible working requests?

Because the point is that the employer wants staff who were sent home to work during the height of the pandemic back in the workplace.

Why should people like the OP continue to work from home when their employer now requires them to return to work from the office to meet the needs of the business?

This has got nothing to do with flexible working requests in general. This isn't a flexible working request. This is an employee resisting returning to the office just because they fancy staying at home no longer. No request has been made for flexible working. The employer just wants staff back to their usual place of work.

And yes, plenty of people have managed to work throughout the pandemic in very difficult situations, long before covid secure workplaces was a thing and even during times when masks weren't deemed necessary. So it is possible. I'm not saying everyone should do it purely because some have had to. Some employers are obviously happy for this to continue. But some aren't.
There's no need to be mardy about going back to the office as long as measures are in place to protect staff.

Why should people like the OP continue to work from home when their employer now requires them to return to work from the office to meet the needs of the business?

Because the wfh guidance is still in place and op, it appears, hasn't been given a reason they can't continue to wfh.

Why should people like the OP continue to work from home when their employer now requires them to return to work from the office to meet the needs of the business?

We don't know it was. And that wasn't the point. The point I was responding to was that op should go back because other people have gone back or working out of the house the whole time. Which is entirely irrelevant and has no correlation to the needs of the business
I think the phrase 'stamping their feet was used.

My point wasn't in response to someone saying any of what you put. It was about someone saying she has to go back because others have.

So yes, flexible working is relevant. Because some people don't have it, doesn't mean other people can't.

[quote Meredithisgrey]@PrincessNutNuts exactly. Not only is it hugely risky from an HR point of view.

Its hugely risky to the productivity of the company. Which means its risky to the profit.

Unless staff wfh is several damaging the business, its a very poor business decision.

One of my teams has 3 people. If they went back and all got sick, non of their work would get done which has a huge knock on effect to the rest of the business. All 3 are very unlikey to all get sick at the same time, if they are all working from home.[/quote]
Yeah.

It's short term thinking, risks causing a whole heap of problems, makes covid spread worse, and I have no idea why some employers are so keen to get everyone back in. It doesn't seem wholly rational.

IsabellesMissingSock

Why do people keep barking "go back to work" as if OP has just been sitting on her arse chilling for the last 15 months? Do some people not understand what WFH stands for? Strange.

I’m sorry but I think it’s you that’s being rather strange here. You and I both know full well what people mean when they say go back to work. Nobody is suggesting that the op has been sitting on her arse doing nothing. People on here have an knack to twist the tiniest comment round to cause an argument. Fool

it's short term thinking, risks causing a whole heap of problems, makes covid spread worse, and I have no idea why some employers are so keen to get everyone back in. It doesn't seem wholly rational.

It does seem irrational. Especially, now. Its being going on well over a year. If they absolutely needed people back due to poor performance and it was damaging the business. Why not last summer? Or a few weeks ago before delta took off.

Doing it right now when there are so many unknowns is really odd.

Where is the OP? They've not posted and we're 270 posts in...

@Meredithisgrey

it's short term thinking, risks causing a whole heap of problems, makes covid spread worse, and I have no idea why some employers are so keen to get everyone back in. It doesn't seem wholly rational.

It does seem irrational. Especially, now. Its being going on well over a year. If they absolutely needed people back due to poor performance and it was damaging the business. Why not last summer? Or a few weeks ago before delta took off.

Doing it right now when there are so many unknowns is really odd.

It does.

The government needs to firm up its position and make clear what a benefit WFH is to the country.

Because an aerosol spread variant that can spread steadily whilst most people who can WFH do WFH is going to have a field day when people who were happily productive WFH are crammed back into offices where the windows don't open.

Most businesses had to adapt quickly to WFH as a temporary measure in an unprecedented emergency situation. It was never meant to be a permanent thing. Some of these businesses are paying a fortune for premises and overheads on empty buildings, what are they supposed to do if they are tied into leases etc. just keep paying for half empty offices in case someone decides to pop in for an odd day?

Because an aerosol spread variant that can spread steadily whilst most people who can WFH do WFH is going to have a field day when people who were happily productive WFH are crammed back into offices where the windows don't open

Exactly, especially this winter. I suspect alot of the ones going back will be sent home again in winter.

Some of these businesses are paying a fortune for premises and overheads on empty buildings, what are they supposed to do if they are tied into leases etc. just keep paying for half empty offices in case someone decides to pop in for an odd day?

But that won't change if people stay home. Having people in costs electric. If they have to pay the lease, they have to pay the lease wether people are there or not.

Also, while it was temporary, most businesses upon realising this could be a year or 2 long have already invested in improving the set up to make work better. Most company's arent still working with an emergency temporary set up. They have better processes and procedures now they have had time.

@SilverGlitterBaubles

Most businesses had to adapt quickly to WFH as a temporary measure in an unprecedented emergency situation. It was never meant to be a permanent thing. Some of these businesses are paying a fortune for premises and overheads on empty buildings, what are they supposed to do if they are tied into leases etc. just keep paying for half empty offices in case someone decides to pop in for an odd day?

Exactly!

Employers don't make business decisions based on Sandra enjoying going for a jog on her lunch break or Steve pottering around the garden between phone calls. It's not all about employees new found freedom. Wfh might have been ok for a temporary measure for many businesses but it was never permanent. Some people need to accept that it's ultimately their employers decision where the workplace is no matter how much they think it works well (for them).

Employers don't make business decisions based on Sandra enjoying going for a jog on her lunch break or Steve pottering around the garden between phone calls. It's not all about employees new found freedom. Wfh might have been ok for a temporary measure for many businesses but it was never permanent. Some people need to accept that it's ultimately their employers decision where the workplace is no matter how much they think it works well (for them).

How do you know that it was only okay as a temporary measure? Many businesses have decided that employees working from home has benefits and will continue.

@Belladonna12

Employers don't make business decisions based on Sandra enjoying going for a jog on her lunch break or Steve pottering around the garden between phone calls. It's not all about employees new found freedom. Wfh might have been ok for a temporary measure for many businesses but it was never permanent. Some people need to accept that it's ultimately their employers decision where the workplace is no matter how much they think it works well (for them).

How do you know that it was only okay as a temporary measure? Many businesses have decided that employees working from home has benefits and will continue.

I said for many businesses, not all