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?

The CEO of our large company has decreed 2 days in the office, end of. Anyone who refuses (even if were previously shielding) is potentially facing a disciplinary.

If he's needed in, it would definitely be a disciplinary if he didn't.

@drpet49 Agreed, her employers should be reiterate that any foreign travel is risky right now and any additional time off would be taken as annual leave or unpaid leave. It is unfair on those left behind that have to shoulder the burden.

They need to come into work or face disciplinary action.

Ah so when you say “fair share” you mean coming in to the office

But she HAS been doing her fair share in terms of pulling her weight and has good productivity

Puts a very different slant on the situation

Personally I'd sack them.

If they are needed in work they either go in or face disciplinary action. I'd be looking to sack them unless they would be really difficult to replace.

I’m sympathetic to people regarding covid but come on they can’t be that worried if they are travelling!

I can imagine a scenario where most of the work is say producing letters but once a week someone needs to go into the office and print and post the letters. Up to this point, the person in question's share of print/post days has been covered with flexibility from other staff while they wfh. This project is so many letters that everyone needs to be in to print/post really, but had the refusenik been taking their turn up to this point there might have been enough good will from others to stretch to cover their share so they could be certain of not catching covid before the holiday. Is it something like that OP?

I’ve one of these. Funny how she wasn’t scared of the Steps concert on Friday night ☹️

@tentative3

I can imagine a scenario where most of the work is say producing letters but once a week someone needs to go into the office and print and post the letters. Up to this point, the person in question's share of print/post days has been covered with flexibility from other staff while they wfh. This project is so many letters that everyone needs to be in to print/post really, but had the refusenik been taking their turn up to this point there might have been enough good will from others to stretch to cover their share so they could be certain of not catching covid before the holiday. Is it something like that OP?

Yes, it is a situation like that. If they had taken their turn and come in every week as everyone else had done, then their refusal now would probably be seen more sympathetically. As it stands, some people are feeling a bit miffed because they've come in, but this person hasn't.

If the employee was not being a hypocrite and was truly isolating, I would say you were being unreasonable to expect them to come in. If they are willing to travel, then they clearly are not.

@AtticusMcPlatypus Tell them they need to come in or else take unpaid leave or face discipinary. Unless there are special circumstances why they were previously relucant. But from your description it sound like they were unfairly expecting other colleagues to pic up their in-office work

I’ve just had this situation in work. My team were given the option to switch to homeworking if they wanted but 4 chose to be hybrid citing they needed the routine back in their lives. All fine with me as there is work we do that is 100% better done in an office. Not essential, we managed but it’s better in person. It’s more complex & time consuming as well. With agreement of the hybrid gang, that work/associated projects got assigned to them. All fine except one started not coming in because he was ‘worried about covid’ .. landing a lot of pressure on the remaining 3. And his productivity at home is appalling.

So, I’ve had to lay it out to him. His missed the boat on home working. He’s hybrid, we require him to be in twice a week minimum. He doesn’t come in, it’s disciplinary. Particularly as his work at home is so bad. It was one of the worst conversations I’ve ever had to do as manager. Well outside my comfort zone but frankly, he needs to get his lazy ass into work. He’s not remotely worried about covid, he’s at the pub all the bloody time. He just CBA to commute anymore or do the more complex work that requires him to do something 🤦🏼‍♀️

Highly unlikely they’ll be travelling in the next few weeks anyway.

What is frustrating is dealing with firms who's service has totally plummeted due to staff WFH and they just don't seem to be making any plans to improve. It is an excuse for poor service. It was forgivable at the beginning when lots were suddenly thrown into a new way of working but we are over 18 months into this now they need to get their act together.

You’re currently being unfair to other team members who’re coming in. And are considering further ‘soft’ handling, not requiring the refusing person in until after their holiday! Presume your HR policies must have been lacking, or you could simply require them in X days a week.

If their job can be done working from home, you should let them. It’s extremely likely the government will soon ask everyone to work from home if they can, anyway.

If the job can’t be done from home then you should ask them to come in but insist that all employees wear masks in the building (and not the completely pointless type of wearing where people have their nose sticking out of the mask or shoce it under their chin), and insist staff take daily lateral flow tests. Many workplaces are doing this now.

Sounds like the person is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes to me. Fine to travel and come into contact with god knows how many people but to scared to come into work, the person should be in work like everyone else. It's just ridiculous.

Erm, at what point has anyone suggested we won’t be able to travel to see family over Christmas @Thewiseoneincognito ? I’m certainly not cancelling my plans this year..

How can this person even get away with this?! It’s very unfair to the others in the team. Ridiculous. Give the job to someone who wants to work.

I would think about what kind of treatment you might want in a situation where you need to ask for something out of the ordinary. Rather than focusing on how you'd be being cheated by this employee being allowed to stay at home a bit longer, think about the useful precedent it might set that you might want to take advantage of at some point.

I think that if those in charge were going to be really rigid about the requirement to be in the office, they should have done it before now. Doing it now just when an employee has a trip coming up to see family they haven't seen for a long time seems a bit petty, when being separated from family has been such a feature of this pandemic. Of course they're completely entitled to be rigid about it whenever they want, but it won't make them that attractive an employer.

Really good ventilation and FFP2 or higher masks in the office for those three days would be another compromise that might protect the chance of any employee like this still seeing family without stopping them being in the office and doing in person work. It is actually a worthwhile goal for an employer to have, to try to accommodate things like this occasionally. Even if they regret all the wfh they've allowed already, stopping it right now rather than, say, after Christmas, is quite harsh.