Would it be unreasonable to refuse to WFH when it suits them because they won’t let us do it when it suits us?

[TeapotCollection]

I’m on the fence here

We did a mix of home and office during lockdown. When restrictions were lifted a handful of us asked if we could carry on with the mix but were told no, WFH has finished. Towards the end of last summer we found out that one department were still doing the mix so we asked again but were again told no, WFH has finished. We asked about department X and were told you don’t work for department X you work for department Y and WFH is finished. We weren’t happy but got on with it

Forward to now and one of my colleagues is off work with a sickness bug. She’s messaged me to say she’s been asked to do a few jobs from home that really need doing this week. She’s not feeling too bad, bit weak, but says she can’t honestly claim she’s too sick to do it - she just doesn’t know if she wants to

I’m not sure what I’d do if it was me

She's either off sick or she isn't.

If she's off sick, she should say no.

If she's not off sick but it's been agreed she can wfh for a few days, she should be working.

If you're not allowed to work from home you're not allowed to work from home.

If you're too ill to come into the office youre do ill to do the job. Their rules.

@GoodChat this, so totally this!

‘… obviously if we were allowed to WFH i would be able to offer to do this work from home subject to feeling well enough, but as it stands it’s been made very clear that in our department WFH isnt acceptable. I’m a bit confused why under the policy it would be Ok for me but not the rest of the team to WFH. I wouldn’t want to have to deal with confusion from the rest of the team about the policy or cause any trouble for managers implementing it, so I think that I would sadly have to decline this option.’

Personally it would depend entirely on my sickness record, and whether I wanted to avoid adding any days to it. If I wfh then I would fully expect that day to not go down as sick leave.

If I had no reason to care about my record, then I would probably tell them that I was unable to work from home as wfh has now ended, so I was no longer set up to be able to do so.

@CurrentHun has nailed it, thank you. I’ll send her that

Thank you everyone, I don’t think they should have asked under the circumstances

MangoBiscuit the problem with that is they know she’s still got the facility, as we all have

She certainly shouldn’t be bothered about her sickness record, I can’t remember the last time she was off

Good luck with that - you won't win any friends!

They pay your wages - they make the rules. Obviously if your colleague is ill she shouldn't work, but business continuity is a real thing and she should suck it up.

Surely she'd need to have a suitable area to work set up though? Desk and chair at the proper heights etc. If they want to go by the book for not allowing flexibilty, then she can do the same from a H&S stand point. However, I think CurrentHun's answer gives them less to argue back with, and makes a valid point of the inequality of the request.

Yep! They were the ones who said wfh has finished, so it has. And nobody should work when they are off sick.

They have made the rules. That WFH has ended.

Yes they have made the rules, and their rules say no wfh.

Then work need a better plan for their business continuity then, if they cannot possible cope with one person off actually ill.

Genuine question to the people who think I am a friend-loser how are businesses meant to handle this fairly then.? Forget the priory sickness absence here it’s not relevant because if the colleague is well enough to work they’re at work.

I’m a manager and there would be pitched battles if some members of our team were randomly allowed WFH and some not. The only reason we don’t allow WFH is when there are performance issues. That is fair. Arbitrary picking between colleagues is discriminatory. I would hate to have to justify OP’s situation in a team meeting..

Previous not priory

@CurrentHun i wonder if a poster has misread your post?
Your post was perfectly reasonable Imo.

Just say "we've been told we can't WFH in our department so I won't be able to". Not lots of passive aggressive waffle about causing confusion.

And they can adapt the rules, ffs!!

Reply that you are delighted that WFH has been reinstated. You would also like to WFH next Monday and Tuesday.

It's not clear what's going on - is she off sick but still being asked to do work - in which case that is inappropriate and she should just refuse or check with HR who will hopefully come down on them with a ton of bricks.

Or is she not formally off sick but they've said she can take it easy and just do a few tests from home? In which case if she's happy to do this then it's irrelevant how fair it is on the wider team - you/they can raise it if they are in a similar position in the future.

Either way I don't really think it's in any way a contradiction with the wfh issue. I don't think it's unreasonable for a business to reject wfh on a regular basis but to allow it in an emergency/one off scenario which seems like is what they are suggesting. For lots of places that's what wfh used to mean before covid.

Yes she’s off sick but has been asked to do a couple of jobs that need doing this week

I assume it must be HR who have been in touch with her, unless she has given our manager her number, don’t know that for definite though

I agree with @latetothefisting and think the reply suggested by currenthun will just annoy the employer because it is so petty.

There's a big difference between working from home no longer being allowed as a general rule and it being allowed on occasion. In any work situation, flexibility is key and both sides benefit from that.

On this occasion it suits the employer for the employee to work at home, despite the general rule.

On another occasion it might suit the employee to do so - for example if they need to supervise an unwell child who is old enough not to need constant supervision but young enough that they shouldn't be left alone all day.

Flexibility works both ways. An employer would be much more likely to agree to someone working at home on such an occasion if that person had shown that they were prepared to be flexible.

If the employee is not well enough to do the work, then of course she should not.

If she is well enough to work but not well enough to be in the office or to travel, I think she should.

Fifthtimelucky we haven’t been offered any flexibility though, just been told it’s finished. I very much doubt anyone would be allowed to WFH with a sick child, regardless of how little supervision they’d need. No one has mentioned asking the question though, and I’m child free so obviously doesn’t apply to me

They can but there has to be compromise @Sirikit - there's no reason they can't occasionally let people work from home for their own benefit as opposed to the employers if they want favours in return