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?

This is not the best place to ask, OP. Mumsnet in general is very "NO, I WANT COVID TO GO AWAY SO WILL PUT MY FINGERS IN MY EARS UNTIL IT DOES".

@swg1

This is not the best place to ask, OP. Mumsnet in general is very "NO, I WANT COVID TO GO AWAY SO WILL PUT MY FINGERS IN MY EARS UNTIL IT DOES".

Or maybe acknowledgement that it isn't going to go away, so we can't hide from it forever!

I’m not talking about perceptions but their power to make change within the business. Management make those decisions

And those decisions can be questioned.

Well then it doesn’t apply to you. I suspect it does to the OP. Yes she can request flexible working, but I doubt there’d be up for granting wfh forever

And I never said it did apply to me. I am speaking as a Senior management for a very large company. I have never worked anywhere where employees are not at least consulted on changes. Or at least having the details of explained to them. Yes, including returning from wfh, while the guidance is still in place

Sure, but in the knowledge that they don’t necessarily have sight of the wider business needs.

But the op can still question the decision. And not be happy about it.

Yes, decisions can be questioned. Employees can and should be consulted. Ultimate decision making comes down to management.

I don’t even get why that’s controversial?

Ah well. Loads of us have been back at our places of work without mitigating measures for a long time. In fact we were told to stop being anxious about it and just get on with it. On here. Lots and lots and lots.

It shouldn't be a race to the bottom, but frankly you're not in the right place for sympathy.

If you've been to a pub, a gym, a restaurant, the cinema, a shop, to a friend's house indoors, stayed with friends or family etc, then you don't have a moral leg to stand on here. People had to go back to work for you to be able to do those things.

@newnortherner111

Whilst I think the OPs employers are being unreasonable, I cannot think legally there is a case (non-legal opinion). Guidance is not law, and the government has flip-flopped over whether it wants people in offices, perhaps depending on who was last to have 'bent their ear'.

Even less so when they are only asking for 50% occupancy, though in pre-Covid times by the time you took account of staff on holidays, in meetings off site, some working from home because of unexpected domestic matters, I expect it was never anywhere near 100%.

I am not at all a lawyer but this is guidance that's been around since before the pandemic;

https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working

We've always had a right to request it and employers are required to be "reasonable" - obviously "reasonable" does leave a lot of room for interpretation but I know friends that began working from home pre-COVID due to them using this I would also imagine that someone's case for requesting WFH under this guidance would be strengthened by the fact they've already been working from home for over a year

Go back to work

I'm not sure why OP is being compared to Drs, nurses, bus drivers, delivery drivers etc.

None of those people can work from home. OP can. Isn't that the whole point? Work from home where possible to reduce overall spread?

People who are able to work from home should continue to do so until the govt advice changes.

Some of us have worked throughout the ENTIRE PANDEMIC coming into close contact with people and having no risk management.

Get a grip and get back to work!

If your company want people back in the office then you go back to the office , all these people keep saying they are as productive WFH but if that was truly the case for the majority then the companies wouldn’t be asking you to go back .

It's reasonable for them to have you back in the office, but equally reasonable that they should have put in place covid secure working, which it looks like they haven't.

@Floralnomad - Lots of firms (mine included) are asking people not to return yet and then have blended return to the office. They have still made good money from their people being productive in the last 18 months. These is more to it than a 1970s style shout of "get back to work!".

@helpmebeanadult

Going against the grain here OP, but I see your point. The guidance is to wfh where possible and employers that go against this are wrong. Wfh protects those that can't wfh and those that can.

So all those who prefer to WFH are not going out at all, are not interacting with anyone or have they just got used to a cosy existance?

(comparisons with nursing etc. are hardly fair, given that masks and other protective gear are worn in such situations, and the OP's concern is that her workplace is not as covid secure as it should, and easily could, be)

@Floralnomad

If your company want people back in the office then you go back to the office , all these people keep saying they are as productive WFH but if that was truly the case for the majority then the companies wouldn’t be asking you to go back .

I imagine there are certain industries where you need more face to face collaboration.

But in most cases it's simply a case of not liking the lack of control that remote working involves and therefore getting people back.

Anyway as I said further up: the guidance is work from home if you can, the OP can, so should continue to do so until the advice changes, not because a micro-managing boss wants to see bums on seats.

If you've been to a pub, a gym, a restaurant, the cinema, a shop, to a friend's house indoors, stayed with friends or family etc, then you don't have a moral leg to stand on here. People had to go back to work for you to be able to do those things.

Not all of us have done those things during the last year though. I don't know if OP has but I don't agree with the assumption that everyone has and therefore it is reasonable for employers to force people back into shared offices with no masks.

I’m not saying they haven’t made money or that some people haven’t been productive , but if companies felt they could close office space / move to smaller spaces and keep people at home they would as it would cost them less in overheads .

@OliveTree75

Theoretical world for you. You have a friend who unexpectedly ends up temporarily fostering a family member's baby. And because it's temporary you are all being sympathetic and helpful when they don't have clothes in or forget that arranging babysitting is a thing now.

It's now been a year and a half. There have been multiple attempts to return baby to family member but all of them have failed. You are being sympathetic still - clearly this is not your friend's fault! - but also secretly you're kind of wishing they would get their shit together and realise that if this is permanent maybe they should change their working hours permanently rather than constantly calling in at the last minute for unexpected baby, and start thinking about nurseries and shit rather than insisting they don't need to because it's only four more weeks and then baby will go back.

Is covid here longterm? Very possibly. Does that mean the sensible thing to do is stick your fingers in your ears and insist that anyone who doesn't return to life how it was 18 months ago is being stupid? No, it means we should start making proper long-term plans for how to deal with that. Which we're still not doing. "Learning to live with covid" shouldn't mean "Well, shit, I guess you guys are going to die then". It SHOULD mean things like the old TB quarantine hospitals, a permanent change to WFH where possible and separate nursing homes for elderly people who are covid positive so there is somewhere to charge them to. Nightingale hospitals were a temporary solution for what was assumed to be a temporary situation. It's time to look at more permanent ones.

@RuleWithAWoodenFoot

Ah well. Loads of us have been back at our places of work without mitigating measures for a long time. In fact we were told to stop being anxious about it and just get on with it. On here. Lots and lots and lots.

It shouldn't be a race to the bottom, but frankly you're not in the right place for sympathy.

If you've been to a pub, a gym, a restaurant, the cinema, a shop, to a friend's house indoors, stayed with friends or family etc, then you don't have a moral leg to stand on here. People had to go back to work for you to be able to do those things.

I haven't done any of those things, other than the odd well-ventilated shop when necessary. I have no intention of doing them until I'm double-vaccinated, and if cases are high I won't be doing any of them until they're lower (which they should be, once we get everyone vaccinated).

Why do you assume people are doing all those things? Many are not!

Why do you assume people are doing all those things? Many are not!

Obviously we don't have the figures to say for certain. However, I would think the majortiy of people have done at least one of the above in the last few months. Visiting shops, family / friends and going out to eat etc, and many will have been working in the above environments without any jabs.

Yes, decisions can be questioned. Employees can and should be consulted. Ultimate decision making comes down to management.

But that's not what's happening here. They have made a decision, the op is questioning the decision and is worried.

Which she is entitled to do and entitled to be.

Which she is entitled to do and entitled to be.

Sure. I’m just not quite sure what she expected. It was going to happen at some point.

If the employer is following guidance and is covid secure, then there is no reason not to go into the office.

To put it into perspective, secondary schools are covid secure and staff can meet over 100 people a day and no children wear masks in the classroom. Staff who were CEV have been in mainly and definitely in the autumn with no vaccination. And the same can be said for transport staff, retail etc.

@Whinge

Why do you assume people are doing all those things? Many are not!

Obviously we don't have the figures to say for certain. However, I would think the majortiy of people have done at least one of the above in the last few months. Visiting shops, family / friends and going out to eat etc, and many will have been working in the above environments without any jabs.

I disagree. I think that many people have not been to any indoor places or visited anyone indoors during the pandemic. During the winter months indoor visits were not allowed and now it is summer people can stay outside if they want to. If they do occasionally go to a shop they can choose somewhere well ventilated and people will be wearing masks.

@AzureTwist

If the employer is following guidance and is covid secure, then there is no reason not to go into the office.

To put it into perspective, secondary schools are covid secure and staff can meet over 100 people a day and no children wear masks in the classroom. Staff who were CEV have been in mainly and definitely in the autumn with no vaccination. And the same can be said for transport staff, retail etc.

What is your definition of "covid secure"?