Employer wants us back on site🙁

Rrrrrr2

TP_CM wrote: »

Wouldn't have a leg to stand on is a bit far. What you're talking about is someone who is getting their job done from a place which is better for the environment, better for commuters, better from a pandemic perspective and better for their mental health. Vs what exactly, a control freak who wants to bin all of that just so they can keep an eye on them.

It doesn’t matter. All that is very noble and I agree with you to some extent but if the business says “we need people back on site for optimal operation of our business” then it’ll be fairly hard to counter that argument. You’d be best try the reasonable discussion route rather than any threats or foot stamping. If that doesn’t work and they remain steadfast then it may be time to look for another more accommodating role

TP_CM

Dav010 wrote: »

The important word in your post is “advice”. Considering the country is reopening, I doubt your case would be newsworthy, particularly if safety protocols are in place.

Incidentally, Government policy does not always coincide with CMO’s advice.

It would be newsworthy because so many people in the country are wondering whether one day they'll be in the same position. Both employers who are gung-ho on getting people back AND people like myself who want to be able to decide from where they work would both take an active interest in the case. It feels like there is more appetite for wfh culture from both Leo V and workers generally. All people are saying they want to be the ones who decide either way. Nobody is saying that they don't want a say in the matter. Laws can change but only if people challenge the existing ones.

Wildly Boaring

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

They can just say “it’s essential to the running of the business” to have people back on site. I do think there’ll be a big cultural shift though and many best people looking to move to businesses where wfh is part of the deal. Ultimately it is a management discretion

Yeah if I were the OP I'd not be stamping my feet and throwing a tantrum.

I'd go back. And I'd now know exactly how little my company cared for my wellbeing.

The pandemic has show up the poor employers.

I'd not be around long

Dav010

TP_CM wrote: »

It would be newsworthy because so many people in the country are wondering whether one day they'll be in the same position. Both employers who are gung-ho on getting people back AND people like myself who want to be able to decide from where they work would both take an active interest in the case. It feels like there is more appetite for wfh culture from both Leo V and workers generally. All people are saying they want to be the ones who decide either way. Nobody is saying that they don't want a say in the matter. Laws can change but only if people challenge the existing ones.

With protocols in place, momentum is now with offices opening. There is no doubt wfh will be more popular with some employer/employees as a result of Covid. As to whether you would be newsworthy, that is highly doubtful as more offices open. If safety protocols are in place, I doubt you would get much sympathy, particularly if unemployment spirals as Covid subsidy schemes come to an end later in the year.

Rrrrrr2

TP_CM wrote: »

It would be newsworthy because so many people in the country are wondering whether one day they'll be in the same position. Both employers who are gung-ho on getting people back AND people like myself who want to be able to decide from where they work would both take an active interest in the case. It feels like there is more appetite for wfh culture from both Leo V and workers generally. All people are saying they want to be the ones who decide either way. Nobody is saying that they don't want a say in the matter. Laws can change but only if people challenge the existing ones.

Do you honestly think a solicitor would take on a case? On what basis?
There’s no way the government can start legislating private businesses to allow wfh. They can and may softly accommodate and encourage it. But that’s about as far as it’ll go

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Personally think you should look for a role that will facilitate working from home OP. The culture of mindlessly attending the office will never change here unless people force it to change.

Agree with this OP. A company will either have a WFH option (and plenty have) or they won't. Like any other factor that determines job satisfaction such as pay, benefits, career progression, company ethos etc., WFH option is just going to be another consideration that will inform your decision where to work.

I feel your pain tbh. I couldn't return to a five day commute and had decided that if that was forced on us I wouldn't kick up I'd just be gone. I've been WFH since March 2020 as have the bulk of my colleagues. Productivity higher than ever and I had a frank discussion with my boss and have been offered a flexible model where I can choose anything from 0-5 days on site subject to several monthly meetings where I will be expected to attend. These are scheduled a year in advance. My fiancé was offered three days in and two out, so he's staying put but casually looking for 100% remote jobs and there are plenty.

So ultimately if it's a deal breaker for you, you may just have to find something else, because if they want people back that's there prerogative but there are options.

wicklow_hunter

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

Yeah if I were the OP I'd not be stamping my feet and throwing a tantrum.

I'd go back. And I'd now know exactly how little my company cared for my wellbeing.

The pandemic has show up the poor employers.

I'd not be around long

They don’t care about my well being. But they have this corporate culture of caring for patients with medication they supply, it’s all about caring for others but when it comes down to it they don’t care less. I’ve realised Your just a number...cog in the corporate wheel.

Water2626262

jackboy wrote: »

I know from working for a multi national that the quantity and quality of work being carried out by most at home is rubbish. I’m not surprised companies are trying to get people back.

I’m surprised at this. The job I do I’m either doing the work or I’m not. It’s extremely obvious when I’m not doing the work and I’d soon have someone on to me asking what’s up.

Maybe it depends on the type of job but seems like they are bad at measuring productivity.

Dav010

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

They don’t care about my well being. But they have this corporate culture of caring for patients with medication they supply, it’s all about caring for others but when it comes down to it they don’t care less. I’ve realised Your just a number...cog in the corporate wheel.

They are caring for your safety by putting the necessary protocols in place.

Padre_Pio

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

They don’t care about my well being. But they have this corporate culture of caring for patients with medication they supply, it’s all about caring for others but when it comes down to it they don’t care less. I’ve realised Your just a number...cog in the corporate wheel.

Sorry to say it, but your employer sets your place of work.

The pandemic forced all of us to make sacrifices, but now we're returning to normality. That means going back into the office.

You WFH for a year is irrelevant now, same as it was before the pandemic, unless you can come to an arrangement with your employer.

TP_CM

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

It doesn’t matter. All that is very noble and I agree with you to some extent but if the business says “we need people back on site for optimal operation of our business” then it’ll be fairly hard to counter that argument. You’d be best try the reasonable discussion route rather than any threats or foot stamping. If that doesn’t work and they remain steadfast then it may be time to look for another more accommodating role

To me if an employee can show they're getting the job done then the argument of 'we need people on site for optimal operstion of our business' should be thrown out the window. I'll agree that the laws might not accommodate that now. But they can change, especially because so many people want choice. Companies have cared about themselves only since forever. That's why we have laws in place to protect employees.

We put in place laws which stopped companies from saying 'For the optimal operation of our business we only want men, or women who won't go on maternity leave', or 'For the optimal running of our business we only want people over the age of 30 because an awful lot of people in their 20s just want to party'. It's not completely out of reason, that one day soon a law.is put into place which gives employees that choice to get the job done wherever they want.

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Urgh.
The OP has clarified his employer is following guidelines.

Bar staff also follow guidelines. Those who can't have been closed for 15 months.

Urgh yourself. The only guidelines being mentioned was allowing wfh to continue.

Again, guidelines aren't laws. They can ignore them. They do ignore them.

And no, bars weren't open if they could follow guidelines. There were laws dictating.

Rrrrrr2

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Sorry to say it, but your employer sets your place of work.

The pandemic forced all of us to make sacrifices, but now we're returning to normality. That means going back into the office.

You WFH for a year is irrelevant now, same as it was before the pandemic, unless you can come to an arrangement with your employer.

I think the only way around this is reasoned discussion with your employer- the threats etc just sound a little hollow and childish to me.
I’ve had it commute to various previous jobs- that was ultimately my decision as the location of the job was clearly specified in the contract I freely signed at the time.
I can see this becoming quite a bone of contention with some employers but ultimately they will have the final say

Locotastic

Jobs market is absolutely flooded with positions right now, I wonder is it because people are quitting rather than returning to normal.

Dav010

TP_CM wrote: »

To me if an employee can show they're getting the job done then the argument of 'we need people on site for optimal operstion of our business' should be thrown out the window. I'll agree that the laws might not accommodate that now. But they can change, especially because so many people want choice. Companies have cared about themselves only since forever. That's why we have laws in place to protect employees.

We put in place laws which stopped companies from saying 'For the optimal operation of our business we only want men, or women who won't go on maternity leave', or 'For the optimal running of our business we only want people over the age of 30 because an awful lot of people in their 20s just want to party'. It's not completely out of reason, that one day soon a law.is put into place which gives employees that choice to get the job done wherever they want.

You are conflating laws on discrimination with State interference on how private companies choose a workplace.

lulublue22

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

They don’t care about my well being. But they have this corporate culture of caring for patients with medication they supply, it’s all about caring for others but when it comes down to it they don’t care less. I’ve realised Your just a number...cog in the corporate wheel.

Operators have been working in pharma throughout the pandemic. While office staff have been working from home. Given that it would be unlikely that the company does not have covid protocols in place. It seems to me that it is a case of preferring to continue to wfh. Which is fair enough but you then need to source a job which allows you to do just that. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for employers particularly those who have had sections of staff on site through out to plan fir and expect other staff to return onsite.

TP_CM

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

Do you honestly think a solicitor would take on a case? On what basis?
There’s no way the government can start legislating private businesses to allow wfh. They can and may softly accommodate and encourage it. But that’s about as far as it’ll go

Why can't they? There are plenty of pro-employee laws which stop companies from being unreasonable. This is just another one which gives employees a choice if they can get the same job done at home. Absolutely everyone wants the choice. No voter or employee anywhere would rather their employer have full control of it. So to me it's an easy thing for our lawmakers to look into. Maybe in 2 or 3 generations time, they'll be thinking how crap it was to work during a time when the employer was able to take all your free time, family time, money for commuting, mental health and tell you to sit in front of them while you work so they can keep an eye on you. Not beyond the boundaries of possibility for me to imagine that changing.

timeToLive

Locotastic wrote: »

Jobs market is absolutely flooded with positions right now, I wonder is it because people are quitting rather than returning to normal.

It's being called 'The Great Resignation of 2021'

road_high

Locotastic wrote: »

Jobs market is absolutely flooded with positions right now, I wonder is it because people are quitting rather than returning to normal.

Is it? Is that at service level jobs in retail etc? I might suspect a fair whack of people there may be choosing to stay on PUP as the take home pay figures stack in its favour vs working for now? I have absolutely no evidence of that so i am merely speculating.

What about in more middle professional office level roles in IT, Finance, Business, Science etc? Natural WFH territory. Are there many positions there?

Locotastic

timeToLive wrote: »

It's being called 'The Great Resignation of 2021'

It's crazy!

I'm still signed up to job alerts from previous job hunting and the sheer volume every day of really desirable roles. We have been trying to fill two roles in work and haven't been able to get anyone to start.

Dav010

TP_CM wrote: »

Why can't they? There are plenty of pro-employee laws which stop companies from being unreasonable. This is just another one which gives employees a choice if they can get the same job done at home. Absolutely everyone wants the choice. No voter or employee anywhere would rather their employer have full control of it. So to me it's an easy thing for our lawmakers to look into. Maybe in 2 or 3 generations time, they'll be thinking how crap it was to work during a time when the employer was able to take all your free time, family time, money for commuting, mental health and tell you to sit in front of them while you work so they can keep an eye on you. Not beyond the boundaries of possibility for me to imagine that changing.

Sounds like unemployment might be the best fit for your work criteria.

Locotastic

road_high wrote: »

Is it? Is that at service level jobs in retail etc? I might suspect a fair whack of people there may be choosing to stay on PUP as the take home pay figures stack in its favour vs working for now? I have absolutely no evidence of that so i am merely speculating.

What about in more middle professional office level roles in IT, Finance, Business, Science etc? Natural WFH territory. Are there many positions there?

Seems to be roles in everything and anything, not just retail and hospitality.

Plenty are actually advertised as WFH too. I think a lot of people have probably had a rethink or change of direction and this has definitely shaken up the jobs market as a result.

TP_CM

Dav010 wrote: »

You are conflating laws on discrimination with State interference on how private companies choose a workplace.

Ok let's take others. Can companies hire someone on contract for years on end and just fire them when they feel like it? No they can't. Fixed term contract workers become protected after 2 years. That's not a discrimination law, just another law which stops companies from being self-invested a$$holes. There are pro-employee laws for a reason. New ones can happen.

road_high

lulublue22 wrote: »

Operators have been working in pharma throughout the pandemic. While office staff have been working from home. Given that it would be unlikely that the company does not have covid protocols in place. It seems to me that it is a case of preferring to continue to wfh. Which is fair enough but you then need to source a job which allows you to do just that. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for employers particularly those who have had sections of staff on site through out to plan fir and expect other staff to return onsite.

I wonder is that dichotomy and workplace politics at play forcing the hand of some mixed employers? A manufacturing company i worked for before there was a bit of jealousy and snobbery surrounding the various offices and teams.
(Manufacturing/supply chain, Customer services and the Regulatory team who were seen as the kind of snobs of the company by the others!) Possibly quite similar to the OP's workplace I'd think. It's possible there's a bit of resentment from the production team and frustration too if they need assistance promptly from the office team and they are no longer on site to assist immediately.

TP_CM

TP_CM wrote: »

Why can't they? There are plenty of pro-employee laws which stop companies from being unreasonable. This is just another one which gives employees a choice if they can get the same job done at home. Absolutely everyone wants the choice. No voter or employee anywhere would rather their employer have full control of it. So to me it's an easy thing for our lawmakers to look into. Maybe in 2 or 3 generations time, they'll be thinking how crap it was to work during a time when the employer was able to take all your free time, family time, money for commuting, mental health and tell you to sit in front of them while you work so they can keep an eye on you. Not beyond the boundaries of possibility for me to imagine that changing.

What law are you referring to?

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

I know from working for a multi national that the quantity and quality of work being carried out by most at home is rubbish. I’m not surprised companies are trying to get people back.

Nothing could be further from the truth where I work. If anything, productivity increased since meetings are easier to arrange and take up less time. Communication is much easier with the right technology. Our work output has not suffered at all.

road_high

Locotastic wrote: »

Seems to be roles in everything and anything, not just retail and hospitality.

Plenty are actually advertised as WFH too. I think a lot of people have probably had a rethink or change of direction and this has definitely shaken up the jobs market as a result.

Must have a quick look myself so!!!!

JeffKenna

I can emphasis with the OP, it's a big culture shock going back into the office after such a long stretch out. The company should really have made some effort to ease the process, week in, week at home to begin with or a few days a week at home.

All good things come to an end however.

Dav010

TP_CM wrote: »

Ok let's take others. Can companies hire someone on contract for years on end and just fire them when they feel like it? No they can't. Fixed term contract workers become protected after 2 years. That's not a discrimination law, just another law which stops companies from being self-invested a$$holes. There are pro-employee laws for a reason. New ones can happen.

Is it not 4 years for FTCs? After which they have to be offered a contract of indefinite duration. Again, that is very different from a employee being able to dictate to their employer where their workplace is. Your employment will continue to be based on the offer made and contract agreed.

road_high

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing could be further from the truth where I work. If anything, productivity increased since meetings are easier to arrange and take up less time. Communication is much easier with the right technology. Our work output has not suffered at all.

Was very surprised by that comment too- anecdotally I hear people with lengthy commutes in particular being much more productive and engaged (stands to reason)- not always clock watching and wasting energy commuting.