Is it legal / acceptable to allow some members of my team to WFH and not others?

[Transportation]

I manage a team of 8. Usual mix of personalities means that 2 out of the 8 are shirkers. Have to keep a very close eye on this pair otherwise there’s cherry picking of easy tasks, little evidence of output and general doing as little as they can get away with. There are multiple ‘appointments ’, dragging out of health issues and they are a headache to be honest.

Id like to be fair and occasionally allow a day WFH for a legitimate reason, say a car MOT or a medical appointment.

There are members of my team who’s output does not drop at all when WFH but predictably these pair will do even less, will disappear for long periods of time.

Id like to make it clear to the whole team that the luxury of WFH is based on trust earned and if productivity drops the perk will be removed.

I can evidence the drop in productivity via our ticketing system.

Would this be an acceptable approach or not fair to give to some and not others?

If you do find yourself micromanaging and having to be on top of them all the time, I would start giving warnings.
It is not fair to allow some people to work from home and no others and they will have a legal stand if they want to take it further.

It is literally their job to tell you what to do, and your job to do it. While you are chatting with a colleague you are not getting on with the job in hand, are you?

Fwiw, I am the boss. No its not my job to manage their every moment and if they enjoy the job because they get to have a chat during the course of their day, that's fantastic afaic. If it means they weren't as productive as they should be, I'd manage that, but not by telling them to stop enjoying life at work.

I'd start some form of performance management or start assigning a set number of tasks.

@Transportation I wrote the Hybrid Working policy for my last employer after Covid, totally agree with PPs that WFH isn't so much a 'perk' these days as an accepted part of flexible working.

But we built some flex in to the policy that where there were training/attendance/performance considerations, these would be discussed with the line manager/more senior managers with the expectation that higher levels of office attendance would be agreed for a period of time as appropriate.

However, this was in the Civil Service where there are currently no 'activity trackers' (certainly in that dept.) as are common in private sector. As you have systems to clearly track output and activity whilst WFH, it may be harder to argue that those employees would benefit from 'additional support' by attending thr office.

And the staff who find it difficult to concentrate because other people's constant chatter is interrupting their work?

I think your company needs a more robust WFH policy OP. It seems unfair and could be seen as discriminatory that some other managers do not allow WFH at all while you are allowing a degree of flexibility with your team. It could be part of the policy that where someone requires additional supervision or training WFH may not be appropriate.

There are some really antiquated views of employment and leadership on this thread. No wonder people hate coming to work, to sit there glued behind their computer screen, constantly being monitored, probably doing what they see as dull meaningless work. Very sad. It's killing the spirit of people.

Manage up or manage out.

I know because I have one of these. It is constant. And every performance management issue gets better for a little bit while something else gets worse. For example, I address punctuality, next few weeks on time but more shit work. Address the shit work, lots of issues with customer service. Address that, back to punctuality. Always just under the threshold.

It's maddening.

We do interesting, meaningful, important work. Some people are just lazy slackers who don't want to work hard for the clients we serve, and that makes their lives worse.

If you don't give a shit, I respect that. Fill your boots. But don't do a job where someone might die.

@Transportation you are not wrong in wanting to restrict a “perk”. Not all employers operate on the same basis and whilst for a lot of people WFH is the norm, for a lot of jobs it is not.

I agree your employer should have an ad hoc home working policy for odd days e.g. appointments, MOTs etc. The policy should reflect the organisations culture I.e. workplace based, and include measurement of outputs etc. You are quite correct this is HRs jobs so other than asking them to produce one. I would set yourself some bullet point rules that ensure you are being consistent.

WRT the two staff who slack, sadly with the response of your manager my advice is think carefully about how hard you want to make your life. I have seen more than one good manager try to performance manage long term slackers only to be let down by their manager’s and even face grievances.

You sound like you have a good grasp of how long jobs take so one tack (which adds pressure to you) is to have rules e.g. jobs must be taken in date and time order, priority order etc. for anyone WFH you will allocate their jobs/tasks. This way you can reduce the cherry picking and measure by outputs.

For other posters I am a huge supporter of flexible working, hybrid working but I am also realistic that it is far easier for some jobs than others.

To answer the question of 'is it legal' - yes if it avoids discrimination. e.g someone who meets the definition of disability may be able to better manage their symptoms if they are able to WFH. Sometimes you have to treat people differently to get fairness. its the outcome that matters. So focus on whether their output has changed not whether WFH is 'fair' or 'legal'.

You need HR to sort this out with you

We went down this route with someone, but there was a clear WFH policy that said that if there were performance or conduct concerns then the employee could have the option of.wfh withdrawn

So we had to go down the PIP route first, but rightly so I think

In fairness they then shirked just as much but in the office! But at least it made it easier to tackle it

I just pop earplugs in to focus.

You've clearly never had to manage someone who is taking the absolute piss.

I am far from a micromanager. My team can work totally flexibly as long as clients are happy and the output is there. But when there is barely any output you obviously have to step in

And there are heaps of fascinating and meaningful jobs done in offices.

@daisychain01 the bottom line is most employees are honest, hard working and reliable however some are dishonest, lazy or unreliable. This is not due to disabilities etc. Employers and managers spend a disproportionate amount of time managing this small cohort. The rule of thumb is any poor behaviours in the first 3-6 months get rid asap.

Oh believe me, I have! But very different circumstances to the OP.

What strikes me is that your manager disagrees with you and the company does not have a WFH policy. You need to be careful that you don't end up in trouble for acting without any real authority here.