Popularity (or not) of 'RTO' return to office mandates
Discussion
After successful hybrid working since lockdown (which has broadly settled into a pattern of 1-2 days into the office for most people) there is talk of bringing in a 2 day at home maximum per week policy with monitoring of card swipes for non-compliance.
It is fair to say reaction has been very mixed - not to generalise but there is a contingent in 40-50s with young / teenage kids where it suits them to a t and don't see any issues. A lot of these are in team heads / middle management positions.
There is also a big contigent of those that work compressed hours / have responsibilities with kids (typically women) and younger individuals that are more adapted to hybrid working (i.e. 1-2 days) as the norm, typically in more junior roles (that make up the majority of staff) that are concerned about the impact this will have.
Cross checking this across our competitors (in the banking sector) where a lot of them have '2 days in' policies it feels out of kilter with the norm.
Cynical side of me wonders if they want to bump up the natural attrition by implementing said policy.
Just curious to canvas how RTO mandates (that are becoming increasingly popular) have been received in different work places - have people followed the rules or resisted.
It is fair to say reaction has been very mixed - not to generalise but there is a contingent in 40-50s with young / teenage kids where it suits them to a t and don't see any issues. A lot of these are in team heads / middle management positions.
There is also a big contigent of those that work compressed hours / have responsibilities with kids (typically women) and younger individuals that are more adapted to hybrid working (i.e. 1-2 days) as the norm, typically in more junior roles (that make up the majority of staff) that are concerned about the impact this will have.
Cross checking this across our competitors (in the banking sector) where a lot of them have '2 days in' policies it feels out of kilter with the norm.
Cynical side of me wonders if they want to bump up the natural attrition by implementing said policy.
Just curious to canvas how RTO mandates (that are becoming increasingly popular) have been received in different work places - have people followed the rules or resisted.
One is being proposed at our workplace - it's not popular.
Let's be honest - there are loads of personal benefits of WFH for the vast majority of us but "increased productivity" isn't necessarily one of them. Work expands to fill the time available and, for a lot of office roles, it's not easy to measure productivity because outputs are quality based rather than quantity.
Let's be honest - there are loads of personal benefits of WFH for the vast majority of us but "increased productivity" isn't necessarily one of them. Work expands to fill the time available and, for a lot of office roles, it's not easy to measure productivity because outputs are quality based rather than quantity.
Maybe you work where I do - we have recently been informed that 3 days is mandatory. Seems a bit of a cynical move given the downturn. When you have global teams it doesn't really matter who sits where. I can go a whole day in the office and not speak to, or even know, the people sat next to me.
I have a bit of a split in my team - those who are younger, live near the office, like to socialise with their peers, don't mind coming in more often than not.
Those with kids, especially younger kids who have developed their life around childcare over covid etc., will find it much more difficult to adjust, and will probably request exceptions/leave (one has resigned already)
Also, it means +£500/month in commuting fees which I consider a real terms pay cut.
I'm looking elsewhere.
I have a bit of a split in my team - those who are younger, live near the office, like to socialise with their peers, don't mind coming in more often than not.
Those with kids, especially younger kids who have developed their life around childcare over covid etc., will find it much more difficult to adjust, and will probably request exceptions/leave (one has resigned already)
Also, it means +£500/month in commuting fees which I consider a real terms pay cut.
I'm looking elsewhere.
My company has taken that step some time back, originally 2 days in the office, then at least 3, now minimum 4 if your manager agrees the 1 day at home, which has to be for a good reason. This is apparently to promote teamwork and "watercooler moments" in a company with 10 offices in multiple countries (I spend most of my time on Teams meetings with different offices). The main gripe is that this policy applies across the company, whether it makes sense or not...
Some employees take it on the chin, some moan but put up with it, others have found better opportunities. Which includes me, my new employer is 100% remote, they don't even have offices.
Some employees take it on the chin, some moan but put up with it, others have found better opportunities. Which includes me, my new employer is 100% remote, they don't even have offices.
hyundaihead said:
After successful hybrid working since lockdown (which has broadly settled into a pattern of 1-2 days into the office for most people) there is talk of bringing in a 2 day at home maximum per week policy with monitoring of card swipes for non-compliance.
It is fair to say reaction has been very mixed - not to generalise but there is a contingent in 40-50s with young / teenage kids where it suits them to a t and don't see any issues. A lot of these are in team heads / middle management positions.
There is also a big contigent of those that work compressed hours / have responsibilities with kids (typically women) and younger individuals that are more adapted to hybrid working (i.e. 1-2 days) as the norm, typically in more junior roles (that make up the majority of staff) that are concerned about the impact this will have.
Cross checking this across our competitors (in the banking sector) where a lot of them have '2 days in' policies it feels out of kilter with the norm.
Cynical side of me wonders if they want to bump up the natural attrition by implementing said policy.
Just curious to canvas how RTO mandates (that are becoming increasingly popular) have been received in different work places - have people followed the rules or resisted.
Does the big boss moonlight as a DJ perchance?It is fair to say reaction has been very mixed - not to generalise but there is a contingent in 40-50s with young / teenage kids where it suits them to a t and don't see any issues. A lot of these are in team heads / middle management positions.
There is also a big contigent of those that work compressed hours / have responsibilities with kids (typically women) and younger individuals that are more adapted to hybrid working (i.e. 1-2 days) as the norm, typically in more junior roles (that make up the majority of staff) that are concerned about the impact this will have.
Cross checking this across our competitors (in the banking sector) where a lot of them have '2 days in' policies it feels out of kilter with the norm.
Cynical side of me wonders if they want to bump up the natural attrition by implementing said policy.
Just curious to canvas how RTO mandates (that are becoming increasingly popular) have been received in different work places - have people followed the rules or resisted.
A lot of it is also to do with the huge real estate costs that many organisations have that they either cannot or do not want to exit from due to cost impact in the short term to the bottom line.
Productivity across many industries is down, call centre stats are shocking in many industries and bringing those people back into the office drives activity, it just does.
Also many companies don't care about this ever growing sense of entitlement, you took the job on one basis, Covid showed you a temporary new way, your employer wants the old way back.
You then have a choice, suck it up or leave, but the number of roles now advertised on LinkedIn etc that are minimum 3 days a week or more in the office is on the up and the number of remote roles is dwindling to almost being insignificant as a statistic.
Productivity across many industries is down, call centre stats are shocking in many industries and bringing those people back into the office drives activity, it just does.
Also many companies don't care about this ever growing sense of entitlement, you took the job on one basis, Covid showed you a temporary new way, your employer wants the old way back.
You then have a choice, suck it up or leave, but the number of roles now advertised on LinkedIn etc that are minimum 3 days a week or more in the office is on the up and the number of remote roles is dwindling to almost being insignificant as a statistic.
iphonedyou said:
CheesecakeRunner said:
So, OP, why did a motoring forum spring to mind as the best place to join and post your first topic about working from home? Why don’t you tell us about the Hyundais you own?
Indeed! I wonder who it is.A regular trolling using the same topics over and over.
Some sort of bot gathering "intelligence".
I'm not entirely sure which.
I also work in the banking sector and due to offices being reconfigured and others not having leases renewed, we physically can't fit more than 50% of staff in at a time. This means we can't have more than 2 days in on average although there is enough flexibility for the few who like to be in more.
Most of the younger staff would rather WFH 100% of the time but I also find the ones that push for that rarely answer a call first time when I'm looking for them
Most of the younger staff would rather WFH 100% of the time but I also find the ones that push for that rarely answer a call first time when I'm looking for them
dibblecorse said:
A lot of it is also to do with the huge real estate costs that many organisations have that they either cannot or do not want to exit from due to cost impact in the short term to the bottom line.
Productivity across many industries is down, call centre stats are shocking in many industries and bringing those people back into the office drives activity, it just does.
Also many companies don't care about this ever growing sense of entitlement, you took the job on one basis, Covid showed you a temporary new way, your employer wants the old way back.
You then have a choice, suck it up or leave, but the number of roles now advertised on LinkedIn etc that are minimum 3 days a week or more in the office is on the up and the number of remote roles is dwindling to almost being insignificant as a statistic.
That's pretty much our experience as well. Our Estates Director has said he needs a steer on what our WFH policy is going to be as there are several leases up for renewal during the next 24 months. If we're not going to mandate staff coming back in then there's no point leasing office space for them. Productivity across many industries is down, call centre stats are shocking in many industries and bringing those people back into the office drives activity, it just does.
Also many companies don't care about this ever growing sense of entitlement, you took the job on one basis, Covid showed you a temporary new way, your employer wants the old way back.
You then have a choice, suck it up or leave, but the number of roles now advertised on LinkedIn etc that are minimum 3 days a week or more in the office is on the up and the number of remote roles is dwindling to almost being insignificant as a statistic.
We are having challenges where the directive from the very top is "more office working" but at the same time there are directives for "no intra-company travel between offices" and leases still being handed back.
So we have a situation where a mandatory office day is declared but there are say, 500 staff based at a "home" office which has only 200 desks now after lease reductions or subletting and even pre-pandemic it had perhaps only 400 desks because half the staff were supposed to be on the road (sales, consultancy etc.). Productivity of people sitting in the canteen, or balancing on a sofa in reception is ... .poor.
As a company we are usually quite good at justifying decisions or at least explaining them. But asking how we should explain the "more office" mandate to colleagues just results in tumbleweed. Which makes it very difficult if you aren't a "do as I say" type boss.
Now, we can infer it's down to a small minority of people who are working barely any hours between taking the kids to school, stopping off for a coffee, nipping to the gym, popping out for lunch with friends, doing a quick shop on the way back, picking up the kids from school, making the kids something to eat, getting them sorted with their homework etc.
But it seems no-one is willing to actually commit to putting that in writing in an official communication. And we are not the sort of firm that would do activity-monitoring type stuff (nor would I want us to be). So we end up with the slightly unsatisfactory situation that because some people take the p8ss, everyone has to suffer. Which is as it always has been.
So we have a situation where a mandatory office day is declared but there are say, 500 staff based at a "home" office which has only 200 desks now after lease reductions or subletting and even pre-pandemic it had perhaps only 400 desks because half the staff were supposed to be on the road (sales, consultancy etc.). Productivity of people sitting in the canteen, or balancing on a sofa in reception is ... .poor.
As a company we are usually quite good at justifying decisions or at least explaining them. But asking how we should explain the "more office" mandate to colleagues just results in tumbleweed. Which makes it very difficult if you aren't a "do as I say" type boss.
Now, we can infer it's down to a small minority of people who are working barely any hours between taking the kids to school, stopping off for a coffee, nipping to the gym, popping out for lunch with friends, doing a quick shop on the way back, picking up the kids from school, making the kids something to eat, getting them sorted with their homework etc.
But it seems no-one is willing to actually commit to putting that in writing in an official communication. And we are not the sort of firm that would do activity-monitoring type stuff (nor would I want us to be). So we end up with the slightly unsatisfactory situation that because some people take the p8ss, everyone has to suffer. Which is as it always has been.
My contract is home based.
We've shut a number of offices.
We've also had some of the best, most profitable years since we made the whole company WFH.
Pretty much everyone I interact with on a daily basis internally and externally, customers and partners and WFH as well. It may be industry specific (I'm in IT, specifically communications) but I'm not seeing any mandates and almost all jobs I get sent by head hunters all full time WFH.
Customers are actively declining face to face meetings preferring remote.
We've shut a number of offices.
We've also had some of the best, most profitable years since we made the whole company WFH.
Pretty much everyone I interact with on a daily basis internally and externally, customers and partners and WFH as well. It may be industry specific (I'm in IT, specifically communications) but I'm not seeing any mandates and almost all jobs I get sent by head hunters all full time WFH.
Customers are actively declining face to face meetings preferring remote.
Bullett said:
My contract is home based.
We've shut a number of offices.
We've also had some of the best, most profitable years since we made the whole company WFH.
Pretty much everyone I interact with on a daily basis internally and externally, customers and partners and WFH as well. It may be industry specific (I'm in IT, specifically communications) but I'm not seeing any mandates and almost all jobs I get sent by head hunters all full time WFH.
Customers are actively declining face to face meetings preferring remote.
I work in IT in a sector that’s almost impossible for the team of engineers to WFH for reasons of let’s say, because that’s why….. We've shut a number of offices.
We've also had some of the best, most profitable years since we made the whole company WFH.
Pretty much everyone I interact with on a daily basis internally and externally, customers and partners and WFH as well. It may be industry specific (I'm in IT, specifically communications) but I'm not seeing any mandates and almost all jobs I get sent by head hunters all full time WFH.
Customers are actively declining face to face meetings preferring remote.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to recruit new workers in, and we have accelerated loss of people going to places where there is WFH. It’s making life very hard. Within 12 months the business risks not being able to compete.
TTmonkey said:
I work in IT in a sector that’s almost impossible for the team of engineers to WFH for reasons of let’s say, because that’s why…..
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to recruit new workers in, and we have accelerated loss of people going to places where there is WFH. It’s making life very hard. Within 12 months the business risks not being able to compete.
Our stuff is almost entirely public cloud nowadays. We rarely even do on-site training anymore.It’s becoming increasingly difficult to recruit new workers in, and we have accelerated loss of people going to places where there is WFH. It’s making life very hard. Within 12 months the business risks not being able to compete.
My wife is in the same place as you, IT company but customers require almost everything on-site. 100% in the office isn't a problem at the moment but they have always paid well.
Bullett said:
TTmonkey said:
I work in IT in a sector that’s almost impossible for the team of engineers to WFH for reasons of let’s say, because that’s why…..
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to recruit new workers in, and we have accelerated loss of people going to places where there is WFH. It’s making life very hard. Within 12 months the business risks not being able to compete.
Our stuff is almost entirely public cloud nowadays. We rarely even do on-site training anymore.It’s becoming increasingly difficult to recruit new workers in, and we have accelerated loss of people going to places where there is WFH. It’s making life very hard. Within 12 months the business risks not being able to compete.
My wife is in the same place as you, IT company but customers require almost everything on-site. 100% in the office isn't a problem at the moment but they have always paid well.
Swings and Roundabouts in my view
I work in corporate real estate for a big city corporate, multiple offices globally so know something about all this but haven't got a particular axe to grind as I'm approaching the tail end of my career.
Our place 1800 odd staff in London we are generally told 3 days a week in the office but it's not policed as such except if you have a micro managing line manager or have responsibility for "coal face" staff. We didn't see over covid a particular drop off in productivity or profit, but the market has got tougher and therefor I can understand the want to get staff back to the office to drive this a bit more. To be honest I worked through Covid so never really saw the benefits of WFH and continue to work at least 4 days a week in the office, I do wonder as a grumpy old bloke how people organised their lives 5 years ago? Everybody now expects their personal responsibilities to be the firms problem, they are not.
A bit of give and take is the most sensible middle ground. As an ex-boss once said to me "there are no bars on the windows" ie fell free to look for other opportunities if you don't like it.
I work in corporate real estate for a big city corporate, multiple offices globally so know something about all this but haven't got a particular axe to grind as I'm approaching the tail end of my career.
Our place 1800 odd staff in London we are generally told 3 days a week in the office but it's not policed as such except if you have a micro managing line manager or have responsibility for "coal face" staff. We didn't see over covid a particular drop off in productivity or profit, but the market has got tougher and therefor I can understand the want to get staff back to the office to drive this a bit more. To be honest I worked through Covid so never really saw the benefits of WFH and continue to work at least 4 days a week in the office, I do wonder as a grumpy old bloke how people organised their lives 5 years ago? Everybody now expects their personal responsibilities to be the firms problem, they are not.
A bit of give and take is the most sensible middle ground. As an ex-boss once said to me "there are no bars on the windows" ie fell free to look for other opportunities if you don't like it.
I work remotely, did before Covid, did during Covid, I used to go into the UK head office a couple of times a month for f2f meetings but the office has been closed. I miss the opportunity to meet the team and collaborate on projects, virtual meetings are good but you do miss some of the facial expressions which can really tell you if people agree with the direction of a project or not.
My wife worked 100% in the office before Covid, she worked from home 100% of the time during Covid and is now going in 2 or 3 days a week as a company wide policy. It's strange as her job is still 100% on line, her sector has gone virtual so she travels into the office to put a head set on and join virtual meetings. She enjoys being out of the house and lunching with colleagues so it works for her but it does seem a waste of time, effort and energy.
My wife worked 100% in the office before Covid, she worked from home 100% of the time during Covid and is now going in 2 or 3 days a week as a company wide policy. It's strange as her job is still 100% on line, her sector has gone virtual so she travels into the office to put a head set on and join virtual meetings. She enjoys being out of the house and lunching with colleagues so it works for her but it does seem a waste of time, effort and energy.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff