One rule for one, one rule for another

[fuego1]

I know, life isn't fair. But I want to vent anyway.

I joined my workplace about 3 years ago. I was told the job was mostly remote ,though contract says office as location. They said as we come out of the pandemic there may be requirements to come to the office more if required. Fine.

Fast forward 3 years and they now want us in 60% of the week, though my current manager has been lenient on this. I know as far as my contract I don't have a leg to stand on, but it takes me about an hour to get there in awful traffic and I hate working that way, its so noisy and I get easily irritated by noise, I have to store my harder work for wfh days so I can actually get it done.

However, what really annoys me is there are some people who moved hundreds of miles away in the pandemic and they don't have to come to the office. I think this is unfair and causes resentment. They don't have to pay for petrol and train tickets to get to the office and have their days made much longer by commuting. It seems there would be consequences for us but not for them. We have been told no one's contract says remote working, they all have the office as the work location. Surely if they're going to have this rule they should tell people who moved away they need to come in or leave?

Is a workplace really allowed to have one rule for one and another for another like this?

It could well be that they have reasonable adjustments that management quite rightly won't disclose to you. I am fully remote because of my disability and have disclosed this to colleagues but didn't have to.

Or honestly it could be that they need them more than others and know they would leave. It isn't fair but does happen.

The only reason is they live hundreds of miles away, it has been explained to the team that they don't know what to do about it at this point

At all three of my previous places of work everyone had different requirements for working locations from the company and none were particularly fair (and were often not complying with their contracts).

My first allowed people who’d been there a long time to come and go as they pleased (even after they bragged about doing no work and spending their days on days out!).

My second preferred everyone to be in the office but offered different ratios of WFH/office depending on negotiations pre-employment (and sometimes informally and employees were asked not to tell HR!). During Covid they wanted me to move to full time working and so I was granted full WFH after negotiations but others were forced to go back to the office after lockdown.

In my current place it depends on where our role sits globally. If you work in a region they’re expected to go in some of the time but I have a global role so work from home.

Could you put a flexible working request in? The government are clear about when companies are justified in turning it down and when not.

I find it odd that so many colleagues have moved hundreds of miles away from their said location of work ( as stated in their contract?)

I think it’s odd too!

Shows a real lack of critical thinking skills on their part.

@HemiplegicAlice exactly! And during the pandemic?

It was over about 3 years, it's a big organisation and some people thought they would be able to work remote forever. I also live in an expensive area of the country and a few people thought they can move to cheaper areas while benefitting from the higher salaries....

Shows a real lack of critical thinking skills on their part

Not if they thought they would be better off because then they wouldn't have to go in to the office.

Are there numerous people who moved hundreds of miles away?

Why? It seems to be working OK for them at the moment.