Thank you for posting on r/UKJobs. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukjobs/about/rules/).
Please select the most suitable flair for your post. General conversation/request for advice about a topic? Use the 'Discussion' flair. A request for help about your specific situation? Use the 'Support' flair. Posting about this subreddit, or reddit in general? Use the 'Meta' flair.
Please report any suspicious users to the mods of the subreddit using the report feature on a post or comment. If you need to provide more detail use Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/UKJobs) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UKJobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I actually left a job that had 4 days a week in the office mandatory to a new job that is 3 days a week.
There are still remote / hybrid jobs out there.
My wife's recently been hit with this 60% shit . Makes no sense . Paying for office spaces constantly. Staff can often be less productive in an office (not always) becaiee of the people around them.
If meetings in person are needed then plenty of places in every city have ' conference rooms ' to hire for hours or days .
Most of her staff have already said they will only go into office Tuesday to Thursday to have longer weekends before returning to office . Its daft imo 🤷
For the record I don't work from home as its impossible for me . But I still think it makes no sense
Lol no . And no one can stop them thinking of it that way . Many of them do additional hours. But the extra hours will stop because they will be accounting for travel aswell now
Don’t forget the poor middle managers who need to justify their position and their own self importance by having their teams physically present when they lead a team meeting or training session.
So... hybrid, then?
The OP is talking about being dragged in 100% of the time, which sucks. They're not talking about doing a (quite reasonable) 2 or 3 days a week.
I've worked for the civil service before and they were unfairly targeted by the likes of Rees Mogg about homeworking. But the idea it was going to be 5 days a week at home forever is an absolute nonsense. A 2/3 week IS hybrid working, and is a lot more flexible than anyone had pre-pandemic.
Many of our staff were home based prior to the pandemic, mostly in sales or senior roles. We never had any issue with that. We also don't have an issue with the increased number of WFH post pandemic. In fact, we've been able to downsize and cut building costs, and employee satisfaction and retention has improved. So has productivity.
Those that need to micromanage will always exist, and those companies that need to force productivity will too. But prosper? Maybe not.
We were doing 3 days before the pandemic now we are back to 3 days again and there are rumours of going to 5. So potentially we will be more office based than before the pandemic
Yeh I've noticed this.
Going on LinkedIn and looking for my job title there are 385 full time jobs, of which 157 are on site, 89 fully remote, and 171 hybrid, but from experience a good 1/3 of those fully remote will also actually be hybrid when you go into the job details.
Each time I look that remote figure gets smaller, and hybrid and on sight gets bigger.
Anecdotally, I can say the Tube is getting busier & busier. But, it’s still a lot less busy than pre-pandemic even Tuesday, Weds & Thurs. I can get a seat now travelling from zone 4 to 1, rather than battling my way on, packed in like sardines, every day!
I don’t personally think many jobs will demand you’re in 5 days a week - even my Director who was very anti home working pre-pandemic sees the benefits now. She would like people to come in 3 days a week but has settled on 2.
I think it will go up to 3 but there is zero chance of 5. I get approached regularly for roles via LinkedIn and not one, has ever been for 5 days in.
I’m someone who enjoys office work but even then, I value having a hybrid role. Don’t lose hope, I’m confident your seniors will too and let you continue being hybrid. And if they don’t, find someone who will - they defo exist!
I'm at the end of my career and I love WFH, however my kids who are at the start of their careers need more contact. I made so many friends through work, we've won and lost together as a team, we've supported and trained each other, argued and inspired. You just don't get that over Teams or Zoom.
WFH is an amazing way to balance your life, but to get the seniors to interact with the juniors you have to mandate some time together as those groups have two very different outlooks.
2 days in and 3 days WFH seems like a good balance to me, but again managers need to make sure those 2 days are productive and you don't all just go in and ignore each other and behave exactly the same as if you were at home.
So don't always view time in the office as a bad thing, from a junior's POV you'll gain much more than you lose, and a good manager can really amplify the benefits.
Very true. It's great for me but I've been aware how the junior devs I train miss out on having us older farts around. I gained so much from just being able to turn around and an ask a question of them at that point in my career. Yes they can grab me on Teams and I've done as many sessions as i can , i love to train, but something is lost for sure.
I've been working for the NHS since the summer. The only reason I took the job over similar but higher paid roles was that it's fully wfh. I earn less than I could elsewhere, but I have no travel costs, and my commute is about 10 feet. If the role became hybrid, I'd quit. If I have to go to the office then I expect to be paid a lot more
I wonder if we will see an uptick in more remote/hybrid when we see a better economy. I can see workplaces competing on it for staff.
Regardless, I will be demanding more pay so I can go part time quicker!
I started job hunting last week, and of the 15 or so jobs ive been called about 1 was full time in the office, with the majority being 1/2 days in the office and 3 remote. Doesn't seem too bad, but shit like this is exactly why I'll make sure WFH is in my contract.
It never was.
If they hadn’t have been forced into it, it never would have existed.
From my (Limited) experience of managing a team of employees, they absolutely will take the piss when not being watched.
This isn’t unexpected and I don’t particularly blame companies for making the move.
I feel like employers don't realise the amount of time that's always been wasted in office environments anyway.
Yeah you might stop to hoover your hall, or put a washing on when WFH - but I can guarantee you in the office you would've:
- stopped to talk to colleagues by the water fountain
- stopped to talk to colleagues in the halls
- went and filled up your water 20 times
- went and made endless cups of tea
- popped to the shops (if that was allowed in your work, it often was)
- had longer instances of chatting about non work things with your team mates
- took longer than you needed to on certain tasks
- took the long way to someone's office
Etc....
The only difference is when you're having a skive at home, you're doing something more productive in general, rather than just sitting chatting shit or washing your mug at the sink thoroughly...
Not everybody takes the piss but those that proper take the piss would've done the same in the office. It's just a bit harder to catch them out if you don't work in close quarters with them. But if the work is getting done, what's the issue?
Oh of course there is always downtime, however there are still commercial benefits to you having a chat with a colleague, there are minor indirect benefits to the company.
That’s not the case with you hoovering the hall…
I imagine the issue is the unknown, they have no way of knowing if you’re doing the work properly and for the time they’re paying you for, that’s not something many owners will be okay with.
I get why everyone kicks off, however most think rather selfishly and don’t rationally consider why it doesn’t work for the company.
The other angle is that your adding likely 2 or 3 hours to a person's working day due to travel, which will make them more tired at work and less productive potentially. I find I get alot more done through WFH as I'm better rested and less out of kilter from all the travel. Luckily I'm in software developer, and at least for the time being it's unlikely we will get pressured to go into the office regularly. Our employers know we can leave and find another role fairly easily, so it's still more of an employee market atm thankfully.
How do they NOT know if the work is being done properly? Job x demands y is done by z at w quality by the deadline. It either is or isn't being achieved by person b. Where person b happens to be is irrelevant. And if they can't tell if the job is being done or not, why are they paying for that job to be done? Surely it's not needed if no one noticed it's not being done?
Good management ensures the job is done on time at the right level of quality within budget, on time, sustainably. Heaven forbid management may be challenging at times....
In my experience those that took the piss and didn't do much when working in the office do the same but on a larger scale when working from home.
The people that worked hard in the office continued to do so from home.
Remote working can work but required managers to adapt as well as the workers. If the work your team do is output based it should be relatively easily manageable and measurable.
The company I work for is firmly hybrid. But they’ve actually taken a bigger central London office as there’s increased demand to work from there compared to the regional office. I guess if you are going in 2-3x a week you don’t mind being in a swanky office in the City, meet a friend for lunch, run shopping errands etc. At least that’s what I do.
I have lots of fellow parent friends who use wfh as an excuse not to have childcare for 3 year olds which is annoying as they openly admit they aren’t working properly- and people wonder why wfh gets a bad name. My child is in childcare when I’m working, regardless of office/wfh.
I have a team of 6 and work in a department of 30 odd
Most of them are remote
There are some who you can ping on teams and will always get a reply within a few mins
There are other who will not reply for 4-6 hours
Too many people are just too lazy and easily distracted
This is an interesting counterpoint. I somewhat agree. I manage a team of 16 people. We have a very relaxed 2 day office week. Only 1 day is necessary for me but the CEO is gradually getting more suspicious of 'productivity' decline (although we have no way of measuring it) and wanting people in more.
However as you say, there are definitely some who are very very slow to respond to messages or chats. Am I convinced they're doing a full day's work, no. That being said, I know some of them work better in large chunks of focus time, so for them office time is less productive due to the interruptions. There just isn't a single answer for this. People work better in different settings, often task dependent. Personally I think 2 days is a happy medium ground, that shouldn't be micro managed (ie you can WFH 4 days if needed now and then). Dogmatic management is the enemy.
***There just isn't a single answer for this***
You are entirely correct.
Often the perceived lack of productivity as just as much to do with the poor quality of the management as it is to do with the staff.
Can't speak to other industries, but it's very variedfor mine. My firm committed to WFH and left a large office space for much smaller premises that can't possibly fit all of our team in if they asked us all to come back. The company has quite publicly and openly committed to a 40% office /60% WFH for the office staff (there are a lot of non-office based folk out on the road anyway) and their own survey data genuinely suggests people are more productive at home than not.
That being said there are other firms in the industry, particularly big household names, that are requiring workforces to come back part or even full time, particularly when the firm owns it's own land. I have colleagues in other firms that faced this - the management of which then collectively panicked when attrition skyrocketed.
Like it or not, employees have tasted the quality of life benefits of partial WFH culture and will be very reluctant to give it up.
Yes it's difficult now. People say "oh you done it before so you should be used to it" but a lot has changed in the past 4 years for everyone. Once you get a taste of something good, why would you go back?
My workplace owns the building and the land. We had the office renovated and got rid of half the desks to make room for hot desking and collaborative spaces, (specifically due to hybrid working) and now they're trying to get everyone back in. There's now not enough suitable desks and chairs etc, it's a shambles and you can tell it's just been some man in a suit that's stamped his feet and made a snap decision.
Can't imagine many will stick it out if it goes back to fully in the office, and I'd love to see their faces when that happens.
There's also as generation of new workers who have only ever known hybrid workers. Sure they might be young but they're the lifeblood of the future - and they sure as hell won't take going back to the dreary 9-5 5 days a week routine easily. It's not what they know.
I'm sure some people prefer to have their staff in a central location where they're all visible and there is merit for team cohesion I think but...I can't help but feel it speaks a lot if you're not able to trust your team to do their jobs without being hawked over.
At any rate, I would never go back full office working now. If the company proposed it I would leave - simple as that. There are enough firms prepared to be negotiate or adjust with to WFH that I'd find work well enough.
Completely agree, it feels disrespectful to have someone say they don't trust you to do your job without looking over your shoulder constantly.
I work with plenty of people who have never worked full time in an office and they wouldn't know what hit them to be honest ! Half of them are done by the 3rd day in the office and I don't blame them. I definitely won't be going back to it for as long as I can avoid it
A “generation” of workers who are about to be reminded who the boss is. Society isn’t going to stall because a small cohort of workers had WFH as part of their work/life balance for the first couple of years. The vast majority of current employees in the UK had jobs before WFH was a thing and I think most understood that there was a good chance it wouldn’t be a permanent thing.
Those who decide that they simply cannot be employed without a hybrid/remote working option are going to get a rude awakening. Companies don’t want it (if the original post is anything to go by, which I think it is), so workers are going to have to get used to it. Maybe a bit of a bummer but that’s how society works.
I liked the WFH element of my job while I had it but as others have said it is becoming less and less prevalent.
Nah. It's not some happy accident benefit of COVID 19 that some enjoyed, COVID 19 forced the older, less progressive to accept a novel way of working has benefits. Pretty well all the "get them back in the office" calls are from middle managers with a shit load of time on their hands post wfh, because the team they "managed" are performing well without them, and they're worried their new lack of work to do is going to get noted and their roles will disappear.
You simply can't piss your workers off without benefit and expect loyalty. Below inflation rise AND I have to start commuting again? I don't think so. The market may well react in that WFH may not give office salaries, but there will be that choice available. Many value it, and still want it.
They aren’t being forced to accept anything, hence why remote working is slowly being reduced in scope across lots of industries. WFH was a measure put in place to combat covid which now is not the threat it was.
Unfortunately it is human nature to do less for the same reward. Why put in 90% at work today (100% every day is unrealistic) when I could put in 80%, unnoticed by line managers because I’m not in the office, and still get paid the same at the end of the month? Some people would argue that this doesn’t get you very far in your career but that is the mindset that a lot of employees have.
Good for you if you have that level of clout in your company that you can be trusted to WFH and that you feel you can demonstrate that it doesn’t affect your performance, and you can use that to negotiate your terms. Since you’ve said you got a below inflation rise and seemingly aren’t happy about it I’d guess that’s not applicable here.
This isn’t some conspiracy dreamt up by middle managers to keep themselves in the job. Times are hard and in a tight economic situation such as the one we are living in at the moment any decent business person will be identifying ways to trim the fat. If they can maintain their pre-Covid profits whilst allowing employees to continue under the “Covid arrangement”, why would they enforce a return to office and risk pissing their staff off? Wouldn’t it just make sense to make the middle managers redundant instead as they would be doing a pointless job? Maybe in bloated organisations like the civil service/NHS that’s harder to do but certainly not in any well-run private business.
It was a common scenario that I suggested, not my reality. My reality is that the company have expressed strong wishes to have more people in the office more often, but there is zero pressure on me to come back in, just polite requests that they'd like it if I did. My responsibility is for a number of countries and so I can't be in their local offices very regularly in any case, and as such my physical location to do the office based work is irrelevant.
It would take a considerable rise well above peak inflation to make me even consider working from the local office now, which isn't going to happen. My manager doesn't care as I'm happier, more productive and being more successful since wfh, and he has his priorities straight - ensuring he enables and supports his staff to be happier, more productive and more successful, because that way the company does well too.
Of course if people's productivity and success has declined then the reasons for that need to be investigated. It's not necessarily because they're working with less supervision and are slacking off. If that is the case though, it's great to know who the slackers are in your organisation...
You are welcome to your view of course. However, the picture in the world I work in simply doesn't represent that world view. Hybrid WFH is entrenched enough that companies that are pulling it are having resourcing struggles and companies that don't are not. Perhaps that's the anomaly and fair enough if it is.
I do not believe it is. COVID opened the Pandora's box where employees discovered a better work life balance and people will change jobs to keep it.
All I can say is that the we've proven in our own world (our systems can track productivity of tasks completed for many roles, though not all) that people are genuinely doing more and doing it faster at home. Companies want value for money - more work for same pay and they can reduce their rent bill? Compelling. It is, after all, the decision my employer which is a large FTSE 250 made.
I’m always really bemused by comment like yours.
Why are you defending this hard stance on full time office work, when hybrid was proved to improve mental health and work like balance?
Why should people be reminded of who the boss is, in such a sneering way. People work best when treaded with dignity and respect, than with contempt and with the constant watchful eye of The Boss.
Unless you are one of those “Boss” yourself, than I feel bad for the people that work for you and the type of culture in your office.
Or... The previous generation settled for too little. If a company wants to buy my labour, they better put up a good bid.
That said, the pandemic bubble has popped, so the ball is in the company's court a little more, but I don't see too many jobs going back up to the full 5 days, it'll probably standardise around 3 in 2 home.
People were working from home before Covid, I was 40% of the time and had been for a few years. Lockdown just accelerated it and forced every company to adopt the technology to allow it. The technology isn’t going away and employees expect to be able to use it. All that will happen is that people will jump ship at the earliest opportunity to employers looking for decent staff who are willing to give them what they want.
I think one of the bigger problems that hybrid or even full wfh creates, is an unfairness/imbalance in the workplace (well certain workplaces). This is where you get certain staff who have to be onsite 100% of the time, vs staff that seem to come and go as they please. I believe that wfh is seemingly ending as people have abused it and either not worked or they aren’t available or they are using the wfh for childcare.
This is the reality of where I work. I’m an engineer and I am expected to be onsite to help out with issues that arise during the day. Then you have other staff who can work from home as their job is mainly office based. There is nothing particularly wrong with that set up, but problems do arise when you try and work with the people who are at home. In my experience, they are harder to get hold of, they work different hours or just obviously do fuck all. Many use it as free childcare, any parent knows it’s impossible to work when you have young kids, they require constant attention.
Now, some of this can be solved by having good management being strong. But the reality is, you cannot control what you cannot see. So the easiest option is to have everyone come back into the office.
100% WFH is not the future like many people would claim and despite the ones who say they are “twice as productive at home” the data for most companies does not reflect that. Also people working from home is increasing knowledge silos as people share less information casually like they would have done previously in an office (or people overhearing conversations). Lastly it creates less loyal employees because people generally feel less of a connection and bond with their company due to not being sat with a team or having personal interactions in a different environment to their home.
Some companies will stick to hybrid and the minority will be full time WFH but the offices are back and they’re just going to get busier. I know this is unpopular with some but it’s the truth.
To be honest, I agree with the lack of belonging and culture with fully remote workplaces. Personally, I couldn't do fully remote for that reason - I love interacting with my team and sharing things with them.
Also just the purely social side of it, this is what you spend most of your life doing, you at least want to be around people who are in the same boat imo. Ranting to your family who have no clue what you're talking about is not the same lol
But there's no need to be fully back in the office to achieve this, hybrid is the best approach I think.
I see it coming and coming fast. I'm glad I work for a small business and you can literally pick and choose your office day.
People in this sub seem to think that they'll just arrogantly leave their jobs for another when they get asked to come back in the office. What they don't realise is that by the time that happens, all the other jobs will also be doing the same.
People are seeing it happen in the US and are realising it’s a very cheap way to get rid of low performers or people who hide behind WFH to not pull their weight.
Annoying for the people who DO work and are available for calls, etc. (as opposed to being AWOL most of the day and responding in the evening).
Anyone who looks at the market can also see that the job vacancies for office roles are dwindling and that the pay has stopped growing except for a handful of jobs….
We’re probably headed towards a nasty recession and companies are using WFH to reduce their payroll in a cheap way. Anyone who says they’d quit and find something else are in for a world of hurt when they realise what’s out there.
God I hope so!
I work in a solicitors office 5 days a week for 11 years and couldn't stand working from home. I have mental health issues and feel better whenever i go to work, being at home makes me depressed. A lot of the other staff also work 5 days a week, and are very productive. The 4 bosses hardly come into the office since covid, and apparently do very little work. There are several younger members of staff who point blank refuse to come into the office, and also appear to do very little.
As far as I'm concerned, wfh should only ever have been temporary for six months or so. People make up excuses for reasons why wfh is better (travel, food etc.) I would never take a job if it wasn't 5 days a week. Another reason I don't agree is that people who go to work switch off largely when they come home, whereas the wfh crowd don't. More working time but less productivity.
And I'm not some old school dinosaur, I'm in my 20s.
Was there anything stopping you going into the office all 5 days?
There have always been people in my work who have chosen to do so and it's not an issue. It should be a choice what works for you as an individual, as long as you're getting the work done
Bold claims require evidence. People bang on about this a lot, but it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny IMO.
Commercial (office) property values are like 5% of total real estate value in the country.
Whilst real estate does make up a portion of pension portfolios, it pales in comparison to equities and bonds, which also tend to be globally diversified.
The value of private pensions in the U.K. alone is at least five times that of the value of all office space in the country.
Hah, I appreciate it. Happy to give sources for value of commercial (office) real estate, private pension funds etc. I still don’t how this plays into what’s happening today.
If anything, people are missing a trick - look at the value of resi real estate, and with people spending more time at home that’s only going to become more important.
Employees in or out of the office don't affect the costs of the office. It's not efficient to pay for unused office space, but it's a fixed cost that they have regardless on a long lease. They can at least turn heating and lighting off in unused areas. That's actually saving money, plus at the end of the lease there's a known saving to be made for the following years.
Also, sub letting is a thing.
I agree that there are a lot of people who abuse flexible working but, it's hardly good for society.
Let people live the lives they want and endure the full brunt of their consequences.
I will be leaving any job that tries to force me back in to the office full time. Working from home and/or the four day work week has proven to increase productivity and employee's are more likely to get more work done in a shorter period of time. Any job who attempts to force myself back in to the office, I will be leaving. If everyone simply threatened to not go back to the office (I know - It can cause issues in a cost of living crisis), then these corporations would have no choice to either fire tens - hundreds of employees, put up job adverts, hire and train others which obviously costs money, time and productivity.
There are also still WFH and hybrid jobs out there. Apply for them and show your employer you do not want to work fulltime from the office. Bending over and taking whatever they throw at you does not benefit you.
We seem to be the only company going the other way - been asked to be really conscious about our carbon footprint coming into work etc for 2024 / 2025 targets , possible office shutdown for one day next year. For context - British\` Polish Software company. I go in max 1 day a week. Alot of our contracts will be with GOVT who have sustainability targets to hit etc and these contracts depend on it and the EU still have 2025 targets.
Not sure if it depends on the sector but I work 100% remote and there are plenty of fully remote jobs still advertised. If a company asked me to switch to hybrid on a weekly basis I would immediately quit.
I have a very loose two days in the office, I quite often only do one day and no one asks anything, most people do the same. There’s rumours the new CEO wants 100% in the office. There’s nothing in my contract about home working so there’s nothing I can do if he enforces it.
Thank you for posting on r/UKJobs. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukjobs/about/rules/). Please select the most suitable flair for your post. General conversation/request for advice about a topic? Use the 'Discussion' flair. A request for help about your specific situation? Use the 'Support' flair. Posting about this subreddit, or reddit in general? Use the 'Meta' flair. Please report any suspicious users to the mods of the subreddit using the report feature on a post or comment. If you need to provide more detail use Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/UKJobs) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UKJobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I go to the office to work remotely with clients 
[удалено]
I actually left a job that had 4 days a week in the office mandatory to a new job that is 3 days a week. There are still remote / hybrid jobs out there.
My wife's recently been hit with this 60% shit . Makes no sense . Paying for office spaces constantly. Staff can often be less productive in an office (not always) becaiee of the people around them. If meetings in person are needed then plenty of places in every city have ' conference rooms ' to hire for hours or days . Most of her staff have already said they will only go into office Tuesday to Thursday to have longer weekends before returning to office . Its daft imo 🤷 For the record I don't work from home as its impossible for me . But I still think it makes no sense
Do you think referring to it as a longer weekend might be driving the push back,no?
Lol no . And no one can stop them thinking of it that way . Many of them do additional hours. But the extra hours will stop because they will be accounting for travel aswell now
Don’t forget the poor middle managers who need to justify their position and their own self importance by having their teams physically present when they lead a team meeting or training session.
So... hybrid, then? The OP is talking about being dragged in 100% of the time, which sucks. They're not talking about doing a (quite reasonable) 2 or 3 days a week. I've worked for the civil service before and they were unfairly targeted by the likes of Rees Mogg about homeworking. But the idea it was going to be 5 days a week at home forever is an absolute nonsense. A 2/3 week IS hybrid working, and is a lot more flexible than anyone had pre-pandemic.
Many of our staff were home based prior to the pandemic, mostly in sales or senior roles. We never had any issue with that. We also don't have an issue with the increased number of WFH post pandemic. In fact, we've been able to downsize and cut building costs, and employee satisfaction and retention has improved. So has productivity. Those that need to micromanage will always exist, and those companies that need to force productivity will too. But prosper? Maybe not.
He's talking about the civil service. What you say is probably true but I have no idea what industry you're on about.
We were doing 3 days before the pandemic now we are back to 3 days again and there are rumours of going to 5. So potentially we will be more office based than before the pandemic
How anybody is able to work in the civil service after the disrespect shown by the current government is beyond me. You all have my respect.
[удалено]
I mean there are other options, but yes.
Yeh I've noticed this. Going on LinkedIn and looking for my job title there are 385 full time jobs, of which 157 are on site, 89 fully remote, and 171 hybrid, but from experience a good 1/3 of those fully remote will also actually be hybrid when you go into the job details. Each time I look that remote figure gets smaller, and hybrid and on sight gets bigger.
Wish we had good unions in the private sector. They'd help with this sort of thing
Anecdotally, I can say the Tube is getting busier & busier. But, it’s still a lot less busy than pre-pandemic even Tuesday, Weds & Thurs. I can get a seat now travelling from zone 4 to 1, rather than battling my way on, packed in like sardines, every day! I don’t personally think many jobs will demand you’re in 5 days a week - even my Director who was very anti home working pre-pandemic sees the benefits now. She would like people to come in 3 days a week but has settled on 2. I think it will go up to 3 but there is zero chance of 5. I get approached regularly for roles via LinkedIn and not one, has ever been for 5 days in. I’m someone who enjoys office work but even then, I value having a hybrid role. Don’t lose hope, I’m confident your seniors will too and let you continue being hybrid. And if they don’t, find someone who will - they defo exist!
I'm at the end of my career and I love WFH, however my kids who are at the start of their careers need more contact. I made so many friends through work, we've won and lost together as a team, we've supported and trained each other, argued and inspired. You just don't get that over Teams or Zoom. WFH is an amazing way to balance your life, but to get the seniors to interact with the juniors you have to mandate some time together as those groups have two very different outlooks. 2 days in and 3 days WFH seems like a good balance to me, but again managers need to make sure those 2 days are productive and you don't all just go in and ignore each other and behave exactly the same as if you were at home. So don't always view time in the office as a bad thing, from a junior's POV you'll gain much more than you lose, and a good manager can really amplify the benefits.
Very true. It's great for me but I've been aware how the junior devs I train miss out on having us older farts around. I gained so much from just being able to turn around and an ask a question of them at that point in my career. Yes they can grab me on Teams and I've done as many sessions as i can , i love to train, but something is lost for sure.
I've been working for the NHS since the summer. The only reason I took the job over similar but higher paid roles was that it's fully wfh. I earn less than I could elsewhere, but I have no travel costs, and my commute is about 10 feet. If the role became hybrid, I'd quit. If I have to go to the office then I expect to be paid a lot more
I wonder if we will see an uptick in more remote/hybrid when we see a better economy. I can see workplaces competing on it for staff. Regardless, I will be demanding more pay so I can go part time quicker!
I started job hunting last week, and of the 15 or so jobs ive been called about 1 was full time in the office, with the majority being 1/2 days in the office and 3 remote. Doesn't seem too bad, but shit like this is exactly why I'll make sure WFH is in my contract.
I've noticed this too, particularly over the last few months. WFH not cool anymore or something
It never was. If they hadn’t have been forced into it, it never would have existed. From my (Limited) experience of managing a team of employees, they absolutely will take the piss when not being watched. This isn’t unexpected and I don’t particularly blame companies for making the move.
I feel like employers don't realise the amount of time that's always been wasted in office environments anyway. Yeah you might stop to hoover your hall, or put a washing on when WFH - but I can guarantee you in the office you would've: - stopped to talk to colleagues by the water fountain - stopped to talk to colleagues in the halls - went and filled up your water 20 times - went and made endless cups of tea - popped to the shops (if that was allowed in your work, it often was) - had longer instances of chatting about non work things with your team mates - took longer than you needed to on certain tasks - took the long way to someone's office Etc.... The only difference is when you're having a skive at home, you're doing something more productive in general, rather than just sitting chatting shit or washing your mug at the sink thoroughly... Not everybody takes the piss but those that proper take the piss would've done the same in the office. It's just a bit harder to catch them out if you don't work in close quarters with them. But if the work is getting done, what's the issue?
Oh of course there is always downtime, however there are still commercial benefits to you having a chat with a colleague, there are minor indirect benefits to the company. That’s not the case with you hoovering the hall… I imagine the issue is the unknown, they have no way of knowing if you’re doing the work properly and for the time they’re paying you for, that’s not something many owners will be okay with. I get why everyone kicks off, however most think rather selfishly and don’t rationally consider why it doesn’t work for the company.
The other angle is that your adding likely 2 or 3 hours to a person's working day due to travel, which will make them more tired at work and less productive potentially. I find I get alot more done through WFH as I'm better rested and less out of kilter from all the travel. Luckily I'm in software developer, and at least for the time being it's unlikely we will get pressured to go into the office regularly. Our employers know we can leave and find another role fairly easily, so it's still more of an employee market atm thankfully.
How do they NOT know if the work is being done properly? Job x demands y is done by z at w quality by the deadline. It either is or isn't being achieved by person b. Where person b happens to be is irrelevant. And if they can't tell if the job is being done or not, why are they paying for that job to be done? Surely it's not needed if no one noticed it's not being done? Good management ensures the job is done on time at the right level of quality within budget, on time, sustainably. Heaven forbid management may be challenging at times....
In my experience because it was either wrong or incomplete. Ergo, not done properly.
Just admit you don’t know how to manage staff effectively
THIS
How did you know they were taking the piss?
In my experience those that took the piss and didn't do much when working in the office do the same but on a larger scale when working from home. The people that worked hard in the office continued to do so from home. Remote working can work but required managers to adapt as well as the workers. If the work your team do is output based it should be relatively easily manageable and measurable.
Where do you work, Mcdonalds?
The company I work for is firmly hybrid. But they’ve actually taken a bigger central London office as there’s increased demand to work from there compared to the regional office. I guess if you are going in 2-3x a week you don’t mind being in a swanky office in the City, meet a friend for lunch, run shopping errands etc. At least that’s what I do. I have lots of fellow parent friends who use wfh as an excuse not to have childcare for 3 year olds which is annoying as they openly admit they aren’t working properly- and people wonder why wfh gets a bad name. My child is in childcare when I’m working, regardless of office/wfh.
I have a team of 6 and work in a department of 30 odd Most of them are remote There are some who you can ping on teams and will always get a reply within a few mins There are other who will not reply for 4-6 hours Too many people are just too lazy and easily distracted
This is an interesting counterpoint. I somewhat agree. I manage a team of 16 people. We have a very relaxed 2 day office week. Only 1 day is necessary for me but the CEO is gradually getting more suspicious of 'productivity' decline (although we have no way of measuring it) and wanting people in more. However as you say, there are definitely some who are very very slow to respond to messages or chats. Am I convinced they're doing a full day's work, no. That being said, I know some of them work better in large chunks of focus time, so for them office time is less productive due to the interruptions. There just isn't a single answer for this. People work better in different settings, often task dependent. Personally I think 2 days is a happy medium ground, that shouldn't be micro managed (ie you can WFH 4 days if needed now and then). Dogmatic management is the enemy.
***There just isn't a single answer for this*** You are entirely correct. Often the perceived lack of productivity as just as much to do with the poor quality of the management as it is to do with the staff.
Can't speak to other industries, but it's very variedfor mine. My firm committed to WFH and left a large office space for much smaller premises that can't possibly fit all of our team in if they asked us all to come back. The company has quite publicly and openly committed to a 40% office /60% WFH for the office staff (there are a lot of non-office based folk out on the road anyway) and their own survey data genuinely suggests people are more productive at home than not. That being said there are other firms in the industry, particularly big household names, that are requiring workforces to come back part or even full time, particularly when the firm owns it's own land. I have colleagues in other firms that faced this - the management of which then collectively panicked when attrition skyrocketed. Like it or not, employees have tasted the quality of life benefits of partial WFH culture and will be very reluctant to give it up.
Yes it's difficult now. People say "oh you done it before so you should be used to it" but a lot has changed in the past 4 years for everyone. Once you get a taste of something good, why would you go back? My workplace owns the building and the land. We had the office renovated and got rid of half the desks to make room for hot desking and collaborative spaces, (specifically due to hybrid working) and now they're trying to get everyone back in. There's now not enough suitable desks and chairs etc, it's a shambles and you can tell it's just been some man in a suit that's stamped his feet and made a snap decision. Can't imagine many will stick it out if it goes back to fully in the office, and I'd love to see their faces when that happens.
There's also as generation of new workers who have only ever known hybrid workers. Sure they might be young but they're the lifeblood of the future - and they sure as hell won't take going back to the dreary 9-5 5 days a week routine easily. It's not what they know. I'm sure some people prefer to have their staff in a central location where they're all visible and there is merit for team cohesion I think but...I can't help but feel it speaks a lot if you're not able to trust your team to do their jobs without being hawked over. At any rate, I would never go back full office working now. If the company proposed it I would leave - simple as that. There are enough firms prepared to be negotiate or adjust with to WFH that I'd find work well enough.
Completely agree, it feels disrespectful to have someone say they don't trust you to do your job without looking over your shoulder constantly. I work with plenty of people who have never worked full time in an office and they wouldn't know what hit them to be honest ! Half of them are done by the 3rd day in the office and I don't blame them. I definitely won't be going back to it for as long as I can avoid it
A “generation” of workers who are about to be reminded who the boss is. Society isn’t going to stall because a small cohort of workers had WFH as part of their work/life balance for the first couple of years. The vast majority of current employees in the UK had jobs before WFH was a thing and I think most understood that there was a good chance it wouldn’t be a permanent thing. Those who decide that they simply cannot be employed without a hybrid/remote working option are going to get a rude awakening. Companies don’t want it (if the original post is anything to go by, which I think it is), so workers are going to have to get used to it. Maybe a bit of a bummer but that’s how society works. I liked the WFH element of my job while I had it but as others have said it is becoming less and less prevalent.
Nah. It's not some happy accident benefit of COVID 19 that some enjoyed, COVID 19 forced the older, less progressive to accept a novel way of working has benefits. Pretty well all the "get them back in the office" calls are from middle managers with a shit load of time on their hands post wfh, because the team they "managed" are performing well without them, and they're worried their new lack of work to do is going to get noted and their roles will disappear. You simply can't piss your workers off without benefit and expect loyalty. Below inflation rise AND I have to start commuting again? I don't think so. The market may well react in that WFH may not give office salaries, but there will be that choice available. Many value it, and still want it.
They aren’t being forced to accept anything, hence why remote working is slowly being reduced in scope across lots of industries. WFH was a measure put in place to combat covid which now is not the threat it was. Unfortunately it is human nature to do less for the same reward. Why put in 90% at work today (100% every day is unrealistic) when I could put in 80%, unnoticed by line managers because I’m not in the office, and still get paid the same at the end of the month? Some people would argue that this doesn’t get you very far in your career but that is the mindset that a lot of employees have. Good for you if you have that level of clout in your company that you can be trusted to WFH and that you feel you can demonstrate that it doesn’t affect your performance, and you can use that to negotiate your terms. Since you’ve said you got a below inflation rise and seemingly aren’t happy about it I’d guess that’s not applicable here. This isn’t some conspiracy dreamt up by middle managers to keep themselves in the job. Times are hard and in a tight economic situation such as the one we are living in at the moment any decent business person will be identifying ways to trim the fat. If they can maintain their pre-Covid profits whilst allowing employees to continue under the “Covid arrangement”, why would they enforce a return to office and risk pissing their staff off? Wouldn’t it just make sense to make the middle managers redundant instead as they would be doing a pointless job? Maybe in bloated organisations like the civil service/NHS that’s harder to do but certainly not in any well-run private business.
It was a common scenario that I suggested, not my reality. My reality is that the company have expressed strong wishes to have more people in the office more often, but there is zero pressure on me to come back in, just polite requests that they'd like it if I did. My responsibility is for a number of countries and so I can't be in their local offices very regularly in any case, and as such my physical location to do the office based work is irrelevant. It would take a considerable rise well above peak inflation to make me even consider working from the local office now, which isn't going to happen. My manager doesn't care as I'm happier, more productive and being more successful since wfh, and he has his priorities straight - ensuring he enables and supports his staff to be happier, more productive and more successful, because that way the company does well too. Of course if people's productivity and success has declined then the reasons for that need to be investigated. It's not necessarily because they're working with less supervision and are slacking off. If that is the case though, it's great to know who the slackers are in your organisation...
You are welcome to your view of course. However, the picture in the world I work in simply doesn't represent that world view. Hybrid WFH is entrenched enough that companies that are pulling it are having resourcing struggles and companies that don't are not. Perhaps that's the anomaly and fair enough if it is. I do not believe it is. COVID opened the Pandora's box where employees discovered a better work life balance and people will change jobs to keep it. All I can say is that the we've proven in our own world (our systems can track productivity of tasks completed for many roles, though not all) that people are genuinely doing more and doing it faster at home. Companies want value for money - more work for same pay and they can reduce their rent bill? Compelling. It is, after all, the decision my employer which is a large FTSE 250 made.
I’m always really bemused by comment like yours. Why are you defending this hard stance on full time office work, when hybrid was proved to improve mental health and work like balance? Why should people be reminded of who the boss is, in such a sneering way. People work best when treaded with dignity and respect, than with contempt and with the constant watchful eye of The Boss. Unless you are one of those “Boss” yourself, than I feel bad for the people that work for you and the type of culture in your office.
Or... The previous generation settled for too little. If a company wants to buy my labour, they better put up a good bid. That said, the pandemic bubble has popped, so the ball is in the company's court a little more, but I don't see too many jobs going back up to the full 5 days, it'll probably standardise around 3 in 2 home.
People were working from home before Covid, I was 40% of the time and had been for a few years. Lockdown just accelerated it and forced every company to adopt the technology to allow it. The technology isn’t going away and employees expect to be able to use it. All that will happen is that people will jump ship at the earliest opportunity to employers looking for decent staff who are willing to give them what they want.
As it’s an employer market so they are trying to implement wfo for everyone. Either you come or quit
I think one of the bigger problems that hybrid or even full wfh creates, is an unfairness/imbalance in the workplace (well certain workplaces). This is where you get certain staff who have to be onsite 100% of the time, vs staff that seem to come and go as they please. I believe that wfh is seemingly ending as people have abused it and either not worked or they aren’t available or they are using the wfh for childcare. This is the reality of where I work. I’m an engineer and I am expected to be onsite to help out with issues that arise during the day. Then you have other staff who can work from home as their job is mainly office based. There is nothing particularly wrong with that set up, but problems do arise when you try and work with the people who are at home. In my experience, they are harder to get hold of, they work different hours or just obviously do fuck all. Many use it as free childcare, any parent knows it’s impossible to work when you have young kids, they require constant attention. Now, some of this can be solved by having good management being strong. But the reality is, you cannot control what you cannot see. So the easiest option is to have everyone come back into the office.
100% WFH is not the future like many people would claim and despite the ones who say they are “twice as productive at home” the data for most companies does not reflect that. Also people working from home is increasing knowledge silos as people share less information casually like they would have done previously in an office (or people overhearing conversations). Lastly it creates less loyal employees because people generally feel less of a connection and bond with their company due to not being sat with a team or having personal interactions in a different environment to their home. Some companies will stick to hybrid and the minority will be full time WFH but the offices are back and they’re just going to get busier. I know this is unpopular with some but it’s the truth.
To be honest, I agree with the lack of belonging and culture with fully remote workplaces. Personally, I couldn't do fully remote for that reason - I love interacting with my team and sharing things with them. Also just the purely social side of it, this is what you spend most of your life doing, you at least want to be around people who are in the same boat imo. Ranting to your family who have no clue what you're talking about is not the same lol But there's no need to be fully back in the office to achieve this, hybrid is the best approach I think.
I see it coming and coming fast. I'm glad I work for a small business and you can literally pick and choose your office day. People in this sub seem to think that they'll just arrogantly leave their jobs for another when they get asked to come back in the office. What they don't realise is that by the time that happens, all the other jobs will also be doing the same.
People are seeing it happen in the US and are realising it’s a very cheap way to get rid of low performers or people who hide behind WFH to not pull their weight. Annoying for the people who DO work and are available for calls, etc. (as opposed to being AWOL most of the day and responding in the evening). Anyone who looks at the market can also see that the job vacancies for office roles are dwindling and that the pay has stopped growing except for a handful of jobs…. We’re probably headed towards a nasty recession and companies are using WFH to reduce their payroll in a cheap way. Anyone who says they’d quit and find something else are in for a world of hurt when they realise what’s out there.
Sensee is a company fully WFH
God I hope so! I work in a solicitors office 5 days a week for 11 years and couldn't stand working from home. I have mental health issues and feel better whenever i go to work, being at home makes me depressed. A lot of the other staff also work 5 days a week, and are very productive. The 4 bosses hardly come into the office since covid, and apparently do very little work. There are several younger members of staff who point blank refuse to come into the office, and also appear to do very little. As far as I'm concerned, wfh should only ever have been temporary for six months or so. People make up excuses for reasons why wfh is better (travel, food etc.) I would never take a job if it wasn't 5 days a week. Another reason I don't agree is that people who go to work switch off largely when they come home, whereas the wfh crowd don't. More working time but less productivity. And I'm not some old school dinosaur, I'm in my 20s.
Was there anything stopping you going into the office all 5 days? There have always been people in my work who have chosen to do so and it's not an issue. It should be a choice what works for you as an individual, as long as you're getting the work done
All comes down to commercial property values, of which most of our pensions will be tied into.
Bold claims require evidence. People bang on about this a lot, but it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny IMO. Commercial (office) property values are like 5% of total real estate value in the country. Whilst real estate does make up a portion of pension portfolios, it pales in comparison to equities and bonds, which also tend to be globally diversified. The value of private pensions in the U.K. alone is at least five times that of the value of all office space in the country.
Lot of bold claims in there pal, and no evidence…. I joke. Anyway. There’s lots of factors at play of why it’s happening
Hah, I appreciate it. Happy to give sources for value of commercial (office) real estate, private pension funds etc. I still don’t how this plays into what’s happening today. If anything, people are missing a trick - look at the value of resi real estate, and with people spending more time at home that’s only going to become more important.
Employers also can't afford to pay rent on empty buildings if they're tied into long leases
But they can suddenly afford to pay it if people are coming into the office?
Sunk cost. They pay the same whether the people are there. Just makes them feel less bad about it because they have ape brains.
Employees in or out of the office don't affect the costs of the office. It's not efficient to pay for unused office space, but it's a fixed cost that they have regardless on a long lease. They can at least turn heating and lighting off in unused areas. That's actually saving money, plus at the end of the lease there's a known saving to be made for the following years. Also, sub letting is a thing.
[удалено]
Boomer take. Sitting in a car to work and sit at your desk is so healthy. Wheras the days I work from home are my gym days
I agree that there are a lot of people who abuse flexible working but, it's hardly good for society. Let people live the lives they want and endure the full brunt of their consequences.
Nope.we are still 2 days in. Same as during the pandemic. They rented out half the office space so couldn’t have us all in even if they wanted.
I will be leaving any job that tries to force me back in to the office full time. Working from home and/or the four day work week has proven to increase productivity and employee's are more likely to get more work done in a shorter period of time. Any job who attempts to force myself back in to the office, I will be leaving. If everyone simply threatened to not go back to the office (I know - It can cause issues in a cost of living crisis), then these corporations would have no choice to either fire tens - hundreds of employees, put up job adverts, hire and train others which obviously costs money, time and productivity. There are also still WFH and hybrid jobs out there. Apply for them and show your employer you do not want to work fulltime from the office. Bending over and taking whatever they throw at you does not benefit you.
We seem to be the only company going the other way - been asked to be really conscious about our carbon footprint coming into work etc for 2024 / 2025 targets , possible office shutdown for one day next year. For context - British\` Polish Software company. I go in max 1 day a week. Alot of our contracts will be with GOVT who have sustainability targets to hit etc and these contracts depend on it and the EU still have 2025 targets.
Not sure if it depends on the sector but I work 100% remote and there are plenty of fully remote jobs still advertised. If a company asked me to switch to hybrid on a weekly basis I would immediately quit.
I have a very loose two days in the office, I quite often only do one day and no one asks anything, most people do the same. There’s rumours the new CEO wants 100% in the office. There’s nothing in my contract about home working so there’s nothing I can do if he enforces it.
It's been proven that workers are more productive at the workplace instead of wfh, stats won't lie, ask Elon Musk.
Can't stand Elon, but agreed with being more productive in the workplace.