Employee refusing to come into work - scared of covid

[AtticusMcPlatypus]

Bit of a difficult situation at work. Most employees are back on a hybrid working basis, roughly two or three days in the office, the rest at home. One employee has been very reluctant to come in and has barely been in all year with the exception of a couple of days.

We've been pretty relaxed about it so far but we have a big project starting next week which requires them to be there in person for three days. Employee has travel plans booked for the middle of next month and is now refusing to come into work in case they catch COVID and can't go. On one hand I get their point of view, but everyone else is having to do it and it seems unfair that they won't. If they'd done their fair share over the last few months I think we'd cut them a bit more slack, but they haven't. WWYD? Let them off, or make them come in?

No it reads to me the OP needs them in

* a big project starting next week which requires them to be there in person for three days*

@Oftenithinkaboutit

No it reads to me the OP needs them in

* a big project starting next week which requires them to be there in person for three days*

Yes, but later says they would cut them some slack if they had shared the load more previously (or words to that effect) which suggests there is wiggle room under more sympathetic circumstances, therefore there is capacity for work to be done at home if the will was there.

Generally wfh is fine. Their productivity is good. But for this week they need to be in the office. I don't want to be more specific as it's a bit outing, but it is important that for this particular piece of work they need to be present. Everyone else is having to be there so this person needs to as well.

Ultimately it's not my call, but I do think a plan needs to be enforced going forwards where they must be in the office at least two days a week, even if this isn't until after their trip.

I think this question may be superseded shortly. We may all be encouraged to wfh shortly due to the new variant. That was the advice given to Boris recently however he’s not gone that far. Yet.

If there is a way everyone can do this big project while wfh I’d suggest you start putting the wheels in motion. If you have the authority to do so.

So everyone’s default will again be wfh unless you wish to come in, in which case it will be risk assessed.

But combination of this Particular project
Plus not pulling weight for last year

Would indicate to me very limited “wiggle room”

If their productivity at home is fine why do you comment about them not doing their fair share?

And if attendance is absolutely necessary, how would you cut them
Slack if they had done their "fair share" previously?

So their productivity is good?

In your op you say they’ve not pulled their weight

@AtticusMcPlatypus

Generally wfh is fine. Their productivity is good. But for this week they need to be in the office. I don't want to be more specific as it's a bit outing, but it is important that for this particular piece of work they need to be present. Everyone else is having to be there so this person needs to as well.

Ultimately it's not my call, but I do think a plan needs to be enforced going forwards where they must be in the office at least two days a week, even if this isn't until after their trip.

If their productivity at home is fine why do you comment about them not doing their fair share?

And if attendance is absolutely necessary, how would you cut them
Slack if they had done their "fair share" previously?

I was under the impression it was your call and you were the boss!

If they have a vulnerability that would be one thing. But not wanting to because their plans may be cancelled is taking the piss.

I'm not trying to be an arse but if I was the employee in question I would be seeing these contradictions and these would be the questions I would be asking so worth clarifying this in your head.

That said, you now say it's not your call so I wouldn't lose any more headspace to it if you can't do anything about it anyway. 🤷‍♀️

I'm not trying to be an arse but if I was the employee in question I would be seeing these contradictions and these would be the questions I would be asking so worth clarifying this in your head.

That said, you now say it's not your call so I wouldn't lose any more headspace to it if you can't do anything about it anyway. 🤷‍♀️

Your policy needs to be black and white & the same for everyone. I think there’s already discrimination based on the fact you’ve got one person not doing the same as others. You can say you could ‘cut them some slack’ but you absolutely ‘need’ them in in the same post. Not possible- the two are opposites. If they’ve successfully done WFH you now need to offer that to everyone. You can’t take into consideration people’s various reasons for wanting to do wfh- that’s private. Your policy needs to be Crystal clear and based on whether the work can be done from home, or not. I think from your post it can be done from home to be honest as you’ve got an example of it working well. I’d roll out a clear policy for everyone before they start feeling they’ve been treated really unfairly, which I think they have! Everyone has private lives and may prefer wfh for whatever reason. X

Yes I agree
An unclear Op
Gives the impression not happy with her productivity
Gives the impression that you are responsible for the decision

And then turns out
Productivity is good
You do not have any say

And as for the project, either attendance IS required for 3 days or it isn’t

Is this ambiguity runs through the company, then the employee is not wrong in also being rather woolly

Interesting isn't it.

The problem is, if your workplace is filled with people who aren't keeping their distance, washing hands and wearing masks you are kind of being unreasonable.

If this type of project has been handled WFH and they worked through out the pandemic and balancing 0 childcare I would cut them some slack.

Your risk isn't everyone else's risk tolerance, and if it's because managers want to see your face rather than actual work that needs f2f then I wouldn't be too fussed.

It's a employees market at the moment, they may decide to jump ship to somewhere else that's more understanding and that may be not a problem in your industry but usually it costs more to replace a leaving staff member than it does to recruit one.

Wow, how entitled is this person?! They do realise millions of people had and have no choice but to work with members of the public on a daily basis, from shop assistants to bus drivers to care staff and all healthcare workers.

The fact they have told you they are prioritising a holiday and clearly feel quite self righteous about this haha - what planet are they living on. Tell them to get out of the behind and back in the office!

I think employers need to stop pandering and start being stricter with getting people back in, leaving it open ended or not mandating a minimum amount of days means chancers like this one will continued to take the piss. At our place we have 40% of the week back in office but no one is really enforcing it.

I’m mid 60’s. I haven’t missed a day at work since COVID began (6 day week, retail).
Baffled at the entitlement.

I understand some people are needing to shield due to health. We should do our best to protect those people.

Some people are doing the same due to worry. I can understand that, although noting that it is a fortunate position to be in (financially, work wise etc). Although depending on the level of worry, it may be a MH issue, which is not very fortunate at all.

This person is taking the piss though. If they are too scared to come to work due to covid, they should be too scared to travel. But they aren't so it doesn't add up to me.

@icelolly12 other people’s scenarios are irrelevant though.. the fact a bus driver has carried on f2f doesn’t reduce or increase the risk for the employees at OP’s company. There’s zero logic in martyr-ing people based on other people’s contexts as that has absolutely no bearing on the way a virus spreads.. If anything only the absolutely essential face to face work should be done face to face. Otherwise the people who are ‘showing up’ when they could do their work without risking any infection transmission are actually undermining the sacrifice being made by those who are facing the risk of infection every day as it prolongs the pandemic and promotes transmission; the very things those essential workers are forced to deal with so we can get through this period with basic services still
Intact! In some ways I find this idea of ‘we should all go back because the essential workers are’ is actually a slap in the face to the essential workers! X

I bet the rest of your team is already you already for pandering to one person who doesn’t want to be in the office when they are following what is requested and most likely do not want to be there either.

It is not fair, if you are going to allow one person to chose where to work, you allow the whole team to choose as well, otherwise you start the ball rolling to replace the piss taker if they are not able to do the work as required.

@idiotfacelicker

If their productivity at home is fine why do you comment about them not doing their fair share?

And if attendance is absolutely necessary, how would you cut them
Slack if they had done their "fair share" previously?

By fair share, I don't mean work, I mean coming into work on a hybrid basis as everyone else has had to.

** Turn it round.

They have booked a trip that could mean they can't come in to work.

Doesn't sound so logical that way, does it?

Get some legal advice and start a proper disciplinary action. You need to be sure that whatever you choose to do is legal and won't cause you further issues - not least that by letting them off you are setting a precedent that any other employee could demand to receive and sue for discrimination if you say no.**

^Do this

The main question really needs to be “can the work be done from home or not?”
Any other question is really irrelevant. I would say if you make any decisions based on any other questions and you end up at tribunal, you might be on shaky grounds for discrimination. Your policy should be based only on the answer to that question, and applied to all who do the same post. Xo

Similar situation with someone at my workplace, they can only do the absolute minimum in the office because of 'concerns about Covid' but they quite happily go to busy pubs, restaurants etc at weekends and have been on holidays abroad a few times. The truth is (and they have admitted as much to me) it's easier to WFH as no commute, they can get a few things done round the house and there is no boss peering over your shoulder when you are online shopping instead of working. The problem is that there is a perception of unfairness in the team when things are unequal and it causes resentment. I suspect this is the issue for your workplace OP.