Employer insisting DH returning to the office and childcare

[Hedgepond]

My DH has worked 4 days a week at home and 1 day in the office since the return to work after the pandemic. During that time we’ve had a second child and arranged our childcare around our working hours.

I work in a healthcare job, leaving the house at 7.20 and not back until 8.30/9pm on Mondays and Tuesdays. On those days he drops the children in their before school clubs and nursery and collects them after. One child is at a nursery a 15 minute bike ride from the house and one is a 7 minute walk. So he gets the furthest child at 5.40 in order to get back for 6pm for the other one. From January our little one is going to be in a preschool next to the eldest child and will finish at 5.15 so pick up will be even earlier.

We live an hour away from his office. Currently he works from 8.30- ~5.30 non stop in his home office and the logs in again in the evenings after he’s done bedtime.

On Wednesdays he goes into the office while I work at home and then on a Thursday and Friday I work occasional extra shifts to top up my income but to be flexible in the school holidays, so again he does the childcare on those days. I can do that work within school hours but DH is a back up in case I get caught up in an emergency. He will then collect the eldest
and he watches TV until I’m back… I can extent the nursery last minute for the youngest. I come back from work and take them straight to their swimming etc after school clubs.

He has alternate Fridays off and works at home the other Friday.

If DH has to go into the office on a Monday and Tuesday he will be able to arrive at 8.45 at the earliest (he could do an earlier drop off for the children) and he’d have to leave at 4.30 at the latest to get back but this will be impossible from January onwards when the pick up is 5.15. On a Thursday and Friday I would have to give up my extra work to guarantee I’d be back in time for the pick ups as I can’t risk not having any back-up in case I can’t leave work.

He won’t be able to do the hours he does now if he goes back into the office due to the commute so he’ll have to log in most evenings to finish things (he already does quite a bit anyway). I don’t see how this works well for anyone. I’m worried I’ll have to give up my job to do the childcare as we have no one else who can do the pick ups for us. I can’t change my working hours or days.

Does he have any leg to stand on for continuing WFH or should he start looking for another job? He’s the main earner so if he can’t find another job I’ll have to give up mine.

in the office isn’t always best for family life/childcare and employee motivation

This employee mindset will need to change - the pandemic, whilst enabling flexible working impacted the WW economy so significantly that a correction is needed. Painful as it is for employees and the lifestyle they had created.

I agree with others, US firms don't tend to be cuddly to workers and it will largely depend on your dh's immediate line manager.If your dh is the major wage earner then can you look for a flexible role so that childcare falls to you?

Alternatively he could try a flexible working request but I guess that will depend on his criticality to the business. However the reality of remote working means companies can look for cheaper workers, which are not necessarily based in the UK so WFH ultimately can lead to job losses.

I personally do believe there is benefit of office working - face to face helps to build relationships and numerous studies show communication is often non verbal. If his UK bosses are in the office he needs to not stand out, if he wants to keep his job.

That rather depends where you are. Weirdly, we don't all live in exactly the same location as you do.

Indeed.

As PP mentioned, as he has worked this way for a significant amount of time since the pandemic ended, he does have a leg to stand on here.

If he can present a clear case for being more productive working the way he currently is, vs the way they are insisting, and point out where they will lose hours from him on his commute and no longer being available in the evenings, he stands a chance.

He needs to be clear in how this current practice benefits his employer, NOT focus on this needing to happen because of his responsibilities as a parent, they're not interested in that, they do not care.

If this is just a 'blanket everyone back in the office' thing, then he stands a chance if he can show its better for his employer that things stay as they currently are.

If they are looking for ways to quietly fire people, then that won't work but then if thats the case he is better off aware of it and looking for something else ASAP anyway.

I really feel for you, we're in a similar situation and its so tough.
They hired my husband during the pandemic when WFH was a given and we live almost 3 hours from his office. He's always gone in when needed for specific meetings but his team is global so he's often working with people in Europe especially so with the push to return to the office, he still spends most of his day in teams meetings.
It's really frustrating because he's also one of the only people with such a long commute so compared to his colleagues he's significantly more affected by the decision. He's their top performer so his managers are trying to protect him - he missed his office days this week because I had to go into hospital for an urgent appointment but HR don't care about that sort of thing and they're pushing the mandate.
He's holding out for his paternity leave and then he'll find another job.

I haven't advocated for US T&Cs in the UK.

However IME of many businesses there are usually good business reasons for having experienced staff in the same location as juniors for at least part of the week. Its also more difficult to acculturate to a new organisation when remote all the time, even if your role is back office and isolated for the actual work.

Two days in the office each week is not "5*12 hr days in the office" - its pretty flexible. Nothing wrong with asking for more but its hard to portray it as unreasonable unless the underlying contract is being changed.

As for the long hours - well nobody has to do them. One of the many privileges of professional salaries and jobs is the choice. Down tools every day at 5pm, work for a company who is happy with that model and expect fairly slow progression through the career ladder. Put in the extra work and get earlier promotions, faster career progression. In general you can't have it both ways.

People working at the lower end of the payscale rarely have that level of choice and control over their working hours/patterns and still have all the childcare issues to address. It is not unreasonable when those with less choices cast the side eye at professionals complaining that good levels of flexibility are just not good enough.

My DH works from home and I think such an immense workload, literally works non-stop and even then has to work extra unpaid on top to mop things up in time for deadlines. No netflix, walks or chill time. Him being at home has offered our family flexibility as we have no grandparents or siblings of our own to help us.

Pre-pandemic the company my husband used to work for was taken over by an american investment firm and within a year redundancies began.

Basically come in for a meeting, here's a small lump sum, you have 48hrs to sign, you're now on gardening leave, please pass your pass to security on the way out, not even allowed to say goodbye in person.

It was shocking and unexpected, pretty much his whole team was stripped on the same day, they were all in shock, it was awful but legal. We did meet with an employment lawyer who said it was one of the worst she'd dealt with but it was legal, just dreadful. So he signed and took the cash after legal advice.

After years of loyalty to the business, he had swiftly become a number like all other staff. The investment company stripped ALL operations teams to the absolute bare bones.

After reading about this particular investment firm it seems it's something they do to companies big or small around the world.

So no advice, just some solidarity. Best wishes x

I think work is also a social construct and an important one. There is much nuance to be gained from.body language that is absent over teams.

We work hybrid. Two days from home. As a manager it is much swifter to train junior staff operationally and about the ways/culture of an organisation to get things done. Nothing replaces the benefits of "sitting next to Nellie".

Also, as a manager I need to get things dine and those things need a bit of info here, and bit from there. I spend much more time co-ordinating that over teams than in person and I am working 9/10 hour days as standard. It adds at least another hour a day.

That's apart from the ability to judge team mood, gauge how people are doing, keeping the team upbeat and on message.

Working from home is helpful for some of the time but it shouldn't always outweigh being face to face in the office.

Legally if it isn't in his contract it made be difficult to argue. Though I know employment contracts can be varied by practice and side letters. And individual arrangements can be made with employers.

It sounds to me like the employers are shooting themselves in the foot with a good employee for zero benefit to them.

If they are trying to change employment terms, what are they actually trying to achieve with it? As what they will get is someone either changing jobs to somewhere that allows hybrid or more flexible working or coming in but taking more time off sick and working to rule.

The more people who can vote with their feet on the issue, the more it will kick employers up the arse and they will have to change their ways.

I mean he definitely had a leg to stand on - he’s a good solid employee and if they can’t offer him something that works for him he could and should look for another job??
I would. Don’t forget that employees have leverage; it’s not all about jumping however high is asked and being expected to make a significant a personal sacrifice.

What are his contracted hours? Not the hours he is currently working. The deal is that if he returns to the office as they ask then he will need to work just what he is contracted to do to accommodate this. Assuming a standard 7 hour day (9-5) with a 1 hour commute each way you need childcare from 8am and until 6pm. A childminder should be able to help with this, doing drop off and pick up from preschool/school. I get it's a change you don't want to make but surely there's a way with a little bit of juggling

"there could be something in this about quiet firing. I didn’t mention in my original post that his company has recently been taken over by a bigger American company and it is them who have decided on this office working. Redundancies are expected but perhaps if they can force people out with this new office working arrangement it’ll save them quite a bit of money."

That does sound feasible.

As others have said, he does have the statutory right to request flexible working and there are only a set number of reasons that the employer can use. Familiarise yourself with those reasons and provide justification as to why none of them will be an issue, within your DH's formal request.

As for the quiet firing, my friend's company is doing this. Told the whole department a year ago that they were planning on transferring it to an offshore team at some point in the next year. i.e. putting them on notice that the team would be made redundant.

They've then proceeded to drag out the whole process, making the existing team train their replacements. Apparently the atmosphere is awful and everyone hates it.

I'm certain it's a delaying tactic so that the at least some of the team will get fed up and leave before they finally make them redundant, saving them a chunk of money.

The problem is when you don't push back, the 5 day a week, 12 hours a day become your new normal. And if people aquiesce to working unpaid overtime to "get ahead" that becomes the new normal for everyone.

I know, in training, face to face is important, no doubt. I agree with you there. But I don't think sometimes the reasons for having people in the office is for managerial reasons. I do think it is quiet firing sometimes, justifying an office lease sometimes, and sometimes just because people like power over others. I've had good managers who I would work my tail off for, because when it counted, they could be flexible with me. I've had others that enjoyed making life difficult for others or were bullies.

I'm glad you noted not everyone has to do long hours. My experience has taught me, and maybe I'm an old cynic, that the people at the bottom tend to do longer hours than those at the top...and sometimes a side gig or extra job to make up for poor wages. Women historically have always made less then men...it is better than it was, only about 13% less or so, and I'm hoping that the excuse...'you have kids, expect a pay penalty forever, is going away'. I've found women without kids make less money too, so sometimes money is tied to overtime and performance, and other times it is tied to perceptions about gender and race.

I've also noted that people who leave at 5 pm sometimes can get promoted rapidly because they are effective with their time and emotionally intelligent, and/or they are good at delegating their work to others, whether legitimately or not. The ones who work all the unpaid overtime and are super reliable are left in those more junior roles because they are so good at them.

Don't fool yourself that working long hours - way longer than his contract - will make his employer bow to his wishes. That's his choice about how to spend his time. Will he still be working these hours when your small children are older, and want him to play with him in the garden/ at the park / help coach their sports team etc? Unfortunately these unpaid hours don't always pay off, career-wise, and do impact family time. Maybe the two of you need to look at the bigger picture, and consider what you want your family life to look like, now and in 5 or 10 years time. This may be an opportunity for a refresh for you both.

Your family childcare arrangements are not the employer's problem to solve.

It is unfortunate for you, but that's the way it is.

I feel that just because things were done a particular way pre-pandemic it doesn’t mean it’s the best way and working in the office isn’t always best for family life/childcare and employee motivation.

That simply isn't your, or your dh's decision to make tho. Plus although employers take work/life balance into consideration for their employees, the company will always come first.

Just because wfh works for the employee's immediate work, there's often associated benefits that are lost when an employee isn't in the workplace. Most obviously is the training, supervision and general mentoring of younger and new employees, especially graduates and trainees. Just because Employee A meets his deadlines and workload doesn't mean he's pulling his weight when it comes to helping out with younger/new employees who need a lot of hand holding etc., not just the work itself, but also re organisation ethos, attitudes, etc - i.e. "the bigger picture" of the organisation. Having too many people WFH puts more burden on the minority who are in the office to do their own work AND look after new/younger workers too!

Important to make the point that being a young worker doesn't mean you must be working physically in the office, or that you benefit from it either. It's an assumption that comes up a lot on these MN threads. When we hear from younger workers themselves, they're as mixed a bag as any other age group.

One of our trainees now, for example, lives quite remotely and is a long way from a job market of any size. Her opportunities are greater due to remote working and she's never in the office. There are other young employees who access more employment and training opportunities thanks to the availability of remote working and training than they would've been able to do otherwise. The discussion can't focus only on those young employees who work in person.

As usual when it comes to remote working, it's a bad idea to generalise.

We haven’t asked the employer to solve our childcare problems, nor is DH saying that they should be considerate because he works long hours. Someone said it’s probably because he’s not productive which is ridiculous. This new US company took over 2 weeks ago and have implemented this for their original staff. They’ve never even heard of or worked with DH and his current bosses are more than happy with how much he works and the current arrangements. It’s a huge company. He doesn’t have a lot of interaction with junior staff as he’s working independently on projects with people outside the office.

I think if there is no compromise with the employer DH will end up working to rule and finishing at 4.30 on the days he’s in the office while looking for another job or waiting for redundancy pay. Ultimately the company will lose out on his skills and professionalism and he’ll find a job elsewhere.

Some of the responses have been very helpful, others not so much. As some have said, there’s clearly a massive hatred from a certain group on mumsnet towards those who work from home which I despair of. Thanks to those who have provided constructive and useful answers to this.

No is the long and short of it. For starters it seems he's been finishing before his end time for years, he was lucky to get away with it (and this is a good reason why so many employers want their staff back in, if you work until 5.30 you should be available until 5.30 not running out at 5pm to pick up from childcare). How about finding childcare that works for your hours like a childminder?

@mitogoshigg his contracted hours are 8.30 until 4.30, so no, he hasn’t been working below his hours for years

I've found with offices that have mandated 5 days in office after WFH that there's still flexibility given so perhaps he could finish early the two days he does pick up? As he logs back in after this might be acceptable?

I'd wait to make any decisions to see how it pans out - just organise for a childminder / babysitter to do the pick up for now so that he's not too under pressure at the start.

@Hedgepond He doesn’t have a lot of interaction with junior staff as he’s working independently on projects with people outside the office

This may be the issue they are trying to address. All of us, even if not in formal training roles are responsible for coaching and educating the incoming juniors. Not just in the technical tasks of the role but also teach them how to operate at different levels, how to manage as part of the workforce. Its really difficult to contribute to that without "water cooler" time spent with juniors.

They are not demanding five days in the office with fixed hours or other onerous changes which might be a sign of "silent firing". In reality if they wanted to make people redundant they would simply do that.

Mergers and acquisitions are times of change and anxiety in a workforce. Having people spend more time together can mitigate that, make information and culture sharing a lot faster and its easier to intervene quickly where there are concerns

He needs to have an open conversation with them rather than take it as a grievance issue. Simply talk to them about what they are trying to achieve and suggest how he can do his bit but with maybe some adjustment on office hours whilst you get additional childcare in place (which may take a while).

Our company has mandated 5 days a week in the office (also US based company), but UK employees have submitted exemptions to work from home a set number of days and all have been accepted. They have to give a good reason to reject the flexible working request based on the law, and all our jobs can easily be done from home. Definitely submit a formal request, they have 2 months to reply, and go from there. Other than that yes stop working extra hours when in the office, the job will never care or give it back, and look for a new job if this doesn't work out.

Ughhh!! Yes, he definitely does have a leg to stand on!! HR pro here… you are not “lucky” to have a working arrangement that enables family life/ care work and both of you continuing to participate in the economy and contribute your skills…

if your husband has not been subject to any performance concerns since this new arrangement was established it’s going to be hard for the employer to argue that it can’t continue. That said, flexibility is a cultural phenomenon specific to each employer so they may decide to resist it.

It’s a conversation but I’d be very clear that your husband can reasonably expect the arrangement to continue. Good luck and well done for challenging a status quo that excludes and actively prevents fathers from engaging in care work and simultaneously shafts women (/lower earning partners - normally mothers) that have had the audacity to have children and to want to continue with paid work.