Would you turn down a job if flexible working/WFH wasn't an option?

[Waferbiscuit]

I've just been offered a role in the sector I work in (arts/culture) and despite advertising that the organisation supports flexible working, was told that as a senior manager they'd expect me in full time with occasional WFH e.g. 1 day/every few weeks but depending on needs, so likely less frequently. Role also involves a lot of weekend and evenings for events.

I currently WFH 2 days, onsite 3 days. Was surprised at how much having to work onsite FT was a deal-breaker for me and despite it being an interesting job am inclined to turn it down.

Is being able to WFH a deal-breaker for you?

I have broached whether WFH 1 day/week could be in my contract but they don't want to agree to that.

Tbh that is a clear indicator they have no plans to let you WFH at all.

I wouldn't take the job, but I value WFH a lot and genuinely hate people (colleagues) as they often ask stupid questions when you're next to them. At least when I'm WFH I can ignore them until they go away (having used some initiative and googled the answer to their question).

So they advertise as being flexible but aren't really offering any flexibility...that would be a no thank you. The world has moved on, and agile / flexible working is now the norm.

I’d turn down too, used to hybrid so it’d be a killer (especially if your colleagues end up being right fuckers)

good luck x

Depends on the job, pay, family situation at home and commute times

Yes. I have no plans to work from an office 5 days a week ever again if I can help it. I hate commuting. I get more done at home.

I wouldn’t accept it unless the money is amazing. I’m not as keen on WFH as some people (e.g. I prefer hybrid roles where staff into the office at least 2-3 times per week), but only being able to WFH every few weeks, as well as evening work, would be a no for me.

That’s a good point

@Waferbiscuit they basically lied … you have more problems ahead of you than just the WFH situation

It would be a dealbreaker for me, but I would be more concerned about the ringing alarm bells about an organisation that says one thing and then does something very different

If this is what they are like about WFH, then expect the same lack of transparency and honesty around career progression, pay rises, development opportunities etc

It also smacks of an antiquated culture more generally

I'll never work full time in an office again, I'd consider max 2 days per week (which would be significantly more office time than current) as my red line

I would turn it down, I also hate adverts that say wfh or flexible but upon offer they don’t mean that at all, so you’ve wasted both of our time.

I wouldn't work for anyone who advertises flexible working but then won't agree to actually honour that on a regular basis

That's a massive red flag for an organisation that promises things it won't deliver

I recently turned a job down as their idea of flexible working was occasionally doing 8-4 if needed instead of 9-5.

I am in a bit of a rut where I feel like I need to move on from my current role, but the flexibility it offers is incredible and saves us a lot of money. I would need quite a bump in pay for the same role if I had to cover extra commuting and childcare costs, plus to make up for losing time with DC.

Due to young DC I don't feel like now is the time to try and move in to a more senior role, so am basically stuck where I am until DS starts school.

Yes I'd turn it down, I work 2/3 days in office/on campus a week which is perfect, so I'd want hybrid or mostly wfh unless I lived next door.

@Waferbiscuitthey basically lied … you have more problems ahead of you than just the WFH situation

Yes, agree. And yes, that's my frustration in arts/culture orgs where there is little £ and staff are very stretched. They want to be 'right on' and flexible but they just can't do without staff being on site.

If its a dealbreaker for you, its a dealbreaker. I work in recruitment for an arts based company and we have a role where the flex working doesnt apply, and we are really struggling to fill the role despite the very attractive salary. I think people are placing work-life balance much higher now.

Could have written it myself. Saw a dream job recently which I had a great shot at but I just couldnt take the risk to leave my current company that is REALLY flexible and supportive with childcare issues etc. Its too big a risk for me, so I have just resided to being bored for the next few years and counting my lucky stars that its one less time stressor for me.

It's a really good question! I WFH permanently at the moment. DC are late primary age and starting to become a bit more independent. In around 2 years time I would consider a non-flexible role, but only for a much higher salary.

Yes if there is no flexibility, I'm not interested.

I would not go to an office again, I was last in in August and there is no need with all the technical gizmis these days.

Yes. I want to be at home with my dogs and my coffee, not being disturbed by anyone

Unless it was an absolute dream job, or mega money, I would turn it down, and I'd tell them why. It might focus their minds, esp in arts/culture, where they can't necessarily be competitive on salary. They should be looking to be competitive on WFH/flexibility - that's a "free" benefit for them to offer, but has a real value to staff/potential staff.

Also, the fact they advertised it as flexible and are now backtracking on that, is a red flag.

Exactly this. I would turn it down also, with no hesitation.

Yes definitely

Absolutely. I'd have to be paid loads to work on site all of the time.

Yes. I'd never again accept a job with more than 2 days in the office.