Mums forced into office by big UK company?

[MM90]

I work for a big, well-known company. The bosses are considering plans to force all colleagues to come to the office 3 days a week. They are thinking about checking our turnstile data individually and disciplining anyone who doesn’t come in for 3 days every week, whether they need to be there or not. I thought this was the 21st century where working women have the chance to create a sensible work / life balance so long as they perform in their job. My line manager gave me a great performance rating during Covid. I have two children under 5 and no family nearby. Any thoughts on this?

How many days do your children go to nursery?

Yep. People often don't realise how patchy access to childcare is in some areas. It's a longstanding problem but now worse than ever.

the thread title certainly hints at that

There are plenty of employers in London who are happy to pay large enough salaries to cover commuting costs and London property/rental prices

Do you really think that?

There is a road near Waterloo station with period terrace houses. We were looking at Rightmove the other day and they sell for over £1 million. They are two bedroom terraces that open right out into the street. A graduate salary is likely to be somewhere between £25K and £35K in London, you can be lucky and earn more.

There was one that cost £1.2 million in 2021. In 1996 it was £55,000!

In 1996 I started my first graduate job. I was earning £19K a year which was a good salary at the time, my husband was on about £13. But even so, I think it illustrates that people can't afford to buy somewhere in London (rents are no better). I know the area has been slightly gentrified, but house prices are way out of step with early or even mid career salaries.

Much cheaper to live outside London with parents and commute in twice a week or less frequently.

Leave. Find a job where you can be fully or largely remote. The companies who are prepared to be flexible and mindful of employee's work/life balance will be the winners in the long run when staff vote with their feet.

Thoughts? You have a job that requires you to go into work. You have inadequate childcare and think this is your work problem to resolve. It’s your issue to resolve. You’re needs make this work, you go into work as it’s reasonable request

It's interesting that research that seems to favour wfh is considered valid but research that suggests there might be unintended consequences is met with the argument that there isn't sufficient data.

Nobody is saying that women can just opt out of societal sexism. Equally, I'm not sure that putting women onto some sort of "mum track", where we just accept that they are the default carers and that's how it is, is going to help very much either.

Like I say, I have no issue with wfh where it works. The issue is that it doesn't work for all roles equally, and there is nothing remotely discriminatory about employers asking staff to come back to the office if that is what the business needs. If that disproportionately affects women because they are doing more childcare, then that inequality is the issue that needs tackling - not businesses making perfectly rational business decisions.

I think your employer is being entirely reasonable. Mine requires the same.

Your 'seems to' claim is odd, in this context. I've not mentioned research about wfh working well or badly at all. Perhaps you have me confused with another poster. Either way, you overstate the case.

Also, a number of posts essentially said that. That's what all the I'd rather we changed society stuff, women need to insist their partners do X and Y stuff meant, when given in response to the unpalatable truth that lack of flexibility and childcare pushes out women more than men.

Nobody expects to be buying a property on a graduate salary though. You rent, live in a house share, save up and buy when your salary has increased. That’s how it’s always been done.

Also, you can only live outside London with parents and commute in if your parents live within commuting distance of London! I’d have had a hell of a commute from Glasgow!

They are thinking about checking our turnstile data individually and disciplining anyone who doesn’t come in for 3 days every week, whether they need to be there or not.

Seems like these "bosses" don't have enough to do. What are they even being paid for?

So what are you saying, exactly?

That employers should offer whatever flexibility women need even in situations when there is clear evidence that certain types of flexibility will be bad for business?

That women should push their employers for more flexibility because it's a waste of effort to get their children's fathers to share the load?

That employers should treat mums differently in recognition of their caring responsibilities?

I don't actually understand what it is you think should happen.

I paid my staff to work 8 hours a day, not 6.5 hours. I didn't expect them to stand out side and smoke, scroll on their phones or make their children's snack or stop their squabbling. So yes i am sure your boss cares if you are too busy looking after your children when you are meant to be working. And morally you shouldn't be taking wages for not doing your job.

So you're an employer who, when a female member of staff comes to you with a request for flexible working - as is their legal right, as it's yours to properly consider it - thinks 'sod that, she should just ask her husband to step up. That's true equality!'

Christ.

Presumably the contract wasn't a WFH contract originally and they are enforcing their employees contracts. If you want a WFH job, apply to a company that is offering one - though competition is excessively fierce so good luck!

Where on earth have I said that? (Clue: I haven't.)

You're just making up bullshit now, but carry on.

This is a ridiculous extrapolation.
The point is that alongside men and women seeking flexibility from their employers they should also ensure they are working in partnership with their husband/partner so that they have equality at home too.

Thank you

Title is misleading, it’s not just mums

That's the obvious implication of both these statements:

That employers should offer whatever flexibility women need even in situations when there is clear evidence that certain types of flexibility will be bad for business?

That women should push their employers for more flexibility because it's a waste of effort to get their children's fathers to share the load?

It's all super judgy of women who, in your eyes, have got a nerve asking for flexible working because they don't want to bother their husbands. Also, what about men, can't they ask for flexible working to look after the kids too? Or can you just not imagine that ever happening? If they did, I assume you'd willingly allow them any flexibility they need, even if it's bad for your business, because they're stepping up and helping their wives and sparing some other employer somewhere else from having to grant a flexible working request?

And that's a ridiculously disingenuous interpretation of how societal inequality operates.

So it should read “employees back in office 3 days”?

Yep. You've provided a perfect answer to @MrsBennetsPoorNerves, saved me doing it!

It isn't a perfect answer at all, it's hyperbolic nonsense.

I haven't said anything about how I respond to flexible working requests from women in my team, you are just making a ton of bullshit assumptions that couldn't be further from the truth.

In doing so, both you and @PregnantWithHorrors have both conveniently avoided answering my questions about what change you actually want to see.

I'm really not interested in your confected outrage about made-up injustices. I'm interested in real life change that actually makes things better for women.

You're delusional if you think you're getting 8 or even 6.5 hours of work out of your employees a day, whether in the office or at home. You're likely getting no more than 3 productive hours per day. And don't think you have no smokers in the office or nobody who sneaks off to check their phone or people loitering around the coffee maker or people chatting about the holidays, sports, what they watched last night.

Have a look at this article:
https://www.inc.com/melanie-curtin/in-an-8-hour-day-the-average-worker-is-productive-for-this-many-hours.html

Being productive for 8 hours a day is a myth. People are pacing themselves to seem productive for 8 hours, but are not really. The human mind isn't capable of it.