Return to office - but I want to remain fully remote

[Nivarg]

Get job hunting. There is currently a shortage of skilled workers.
Find a job that suits you, not the other way around.

 

[thedaddyman]

I work from home but my employer has a clear policy on homeworking. On occassions, I have to go visit clients and a number of us get together in a remote hub once every couple of months to build relationships etc. Without knowing what the OP does and what their role is the starting point should be the employers policy on home working (if they have one) and if what is being asked for in line with that policy.?

Bigger concern here, and I am saying this without knowing what the OP does, is their ability to work as part of a team. Arguing you want peace and quiet and can't work without that would flag all kinds of alarms with me as a manager. OP says they are more productive at home but does the employer truely see it that way?. One question the OP could and should ask is, is there any issue with my output and what I produce when I work from home? That may clarify things

Note if you are homeworking then your employer H&S responsibilities don't change. They should be carrying out an ergonomics review of your home set up and supporting you to work from home. Great that you have an office but do you have a proper chair. screens etc.

 

[misemoi]

If you do decide to go down the route of looking for another job, most employers are moving back to a portion of the week in person. So be prepared for that, and most job specs will say Hybrid but nothing more specific. I too struggle in the office due to noise and events happening there but I have gotten more accustomed to it and try to plan the calendar around so that I can do my focus work at home in the peace and quiet and spend my in person time on in person activities. I would get loads more task work done at home but most jobs are not 100% task work. Productivity is not always the tasks completed, it is also the soft skills built up by networking, training junior team members etc.

And it is hard to see variances in treatment of other people, I will say that sometimes if managers come to specific arrangements with other employees and the reasons might be very confidential (eg health issue) and they might not divulge this information.

 

[Samba ramba]

I have been doing that but most are hybrid & require travel so its not suitable as I do have children that are in school. So id be dropping in the morning when I should be in the office maybe an hour away.
Also, I do like my job & the company I work for. I dont feel I should have to move to another job. Or at least not just yet. If I do have conversations with hr & higher up the ladder then I suppose I'll have an idea of where I stand.
The main issues I face is performing in the office for the workload I have & how my manager treats me. I work so much better at home as there is no distractions but if I am at home I also have less dealings with him as a result.
Re working as part of a team. I have a great relationship with the majority of my colleagues & am always at the end of the phone or email if they need anything be it professional or personal.
Re my home office. This is a separate room used specifically as an office space only. It contains standard office desks, chairs & additional monitors so I have all the correct equipment to function properly & safely. Most importantly though its quiet with no distractions - for me that is essential. I know not every manager or employer wants to hear that but theres no point lying about it.

 

[Annieindublin]

In my experience bullying claims start a rollercoaster that just doesn’t stop.
Does your company ever offer mediation? A professional mediator who will sit in on a conversation between you and the manager. And try to establish a way of working going forward. It might not help but it is better than an official complaint in my experience. It helps build relationships and conversations in a neutral environment.

You might also find that the manager is pressuring everyone and you are the current target. I worked with a manger who took it in turns to “pick on” people. It took a long time to see that.

Also be specific if you are discussing this with HR. While it might sound petty to say stuff like “on 2 March there were 4 people in loud calls while I was trying to do XZY which as you know needs full attention” As a result I had to re-do, work later…
It is the opposite of petty, it is concrete evidence that the office was noisy, a task had to be re done or a deadline was missed…
So date and time, specific situation, and consequences. Rather than a generic “moan” about the commute/noise/ etc

It would be interesting to see the drivers for the return. Is there a need for X days per team and your team is comparing badly with other teams and the manager is under pressure to change it,

 

[Clamball]

The company is currently being sued by a former employee
due to the way he treated her.

I think you have the answer there on how HR and higher level managers are going to respond. They are going to back your boss. So I think your only answer is to quietly stop coming in, or if you are in to say, “sorry it will take twice as long as normal as the noise in the office is very disruptive to my concentration.”

 

[Purple]

I think you have the answer there on how HR and higher level managers are going to respond. They are going to back your boss. So I think your only answer is to quietly stop coming in, or if you are in to say, “sorry it will take twice as long as normal as the noise in the office is very disruptive to my concentration.”

I disagree. I'd say they'd want to close this down ASAP in order to avoid another claim.

 

[thedaddyman]

I think you have the answer there on how HR and higher level managers are going to respond. They are going to back your boss. So I think your only answer is to quietly stop coming in, or if you are in to say, “sorry it will take twice as long as normal as the noise in the office is very disruptive to my concentration.”

I disagree. I'd say they'd want to close this down ASAP in order to avoid another claim.

Agreed, if you are up the line and you have a manager with a litany of complaints coming in against him, it tends to raise some serious alarms bells. He may not end up getting sacked but I have seen it happen where they are encouraged to consider career options elsewhere, sometimes being paid off as it may be cheaper in the long run.

 

[presidenttttt]

Interesting, feels like a number of issues being conflated here which won't help you or your manager.

If there is a personal issue or a behavioural issue by manager causing people to leave or find conflict then that should be addressed rather than dealing with the WFH issue which is just the "issue" on this occasion.

If it's an SME you should be able to ask high enough up the company what culture is desired and get a formal answer - if that is 2 days in the office it's likely time to decide if you want that or want to leave, because you won't win the argument or likely not without damaging yourself.

Casting judgement perhaps now - but I think the workforce is in for a rude awakening when we hit a proper recession. Asking employees for a single day in the office is hardly a big burden, especially if most live close by and are not commuting 3 or 4 hours per day. Whether pointless or not attending work in person the contract most of us signed up to at the start was office based. The sense of entitlement that drives a lot of stuff in the workplace now will disappear quickly when jobs are on the line after labour market shifts

 

[Samba ramba]

Interesting, feels like a number of issues being conflated here which won't help you or your manager.

If there is a personal issue or a behavioural issue by manager causing people to leave or find conflict then that should be addressed rather than dealing with the WFH issue which is just the "issue" on this occasion.

If it's an SME you should be able to ask high enough up the company what culture is desired and get a formal answer - if that is 2 days in the office it's likely time to decide if you want that or want to leave, because you won't win the argument or likely not without damaging yourself.

Casting judgement perhaps now - but I think the workforce is in for a rude awakening when we hit a proper recession. Asking employees for a single day in the office is hardly a big burden, especially if most live close by and are not commuting 3 or 4 hours per day. Whether pointless or not attending work in person the contract most of us signed up to at the start was office based. The sense of entitlement that drives a lot of stuff in the workplace now will disappear quickly when jobs are on the line after labour market shifts

Interesting take on my problem. I suppose in a way you are right that dealing with a toxic manager should be more of a priority than securing wfh full time. The reason I'm not doing this is purely selfish - I've seen this guy in action & how he manages to conive & lie his way out of appalling behaviour. I can tell you I'm not the one to make him listen. The only way I can see that happening is through the court system & that's not a road I personally would take. As mentioned a former employee is in the process of suing them - maybe that might be the wake up call that's needed.
And you are right, 1 day in the office is not a big burden if it doesn't have a major affect on productivity. In my case it does does unfortunately.
The implication of jobs being on the line because an employee raises their head above the water for better conditions or help doesn't sit right with me. It's a similar thought process I've seen out of my manager to be honest, it's not the 80's anymore. And I would sincerely hope if there is a recession that any decent employer doesn't use that as a way to strong arm their staff into changing their terms of employment.

 

[Fortune]

Casting judgement perhaps now - but I think the workforce is in for a rude awakening when we hit a proper recession. Asking employees for a single day in the office is hardly a big burden, especially if most live close by and are not commuting 3 or 4 hours per day. Whether pointless or not attending work in person the contract most of us signed up to at the start was office based. The sense of entitlement that drives a lot of stuff in the workplace now will disappear quickly when jobs are on the line after labour market shifts

A rational employer on a recession would look to cut costs. An obvious method would be to cut premises costs by forcing all staff to WFH where possible and downsize the office. If they wanted to cut staff costs, but avoid redundancy costs as much as possible, a call to RTO 5 days a week could possibly make a number of staff quit.

It isn't a forgone logical conclusion that a recession would lead to employers switching to a return to the office.

 

[presidenttttt]

People are strong arming their employers now, hence to ensure there is a culture of in the office employees will on the whole push this harder when the opportunity arises- every few months the data shows the trend back to office, managers want the social, development, team, and transparency benefits. Cost cutting might warrant a second WFH contract on 20% less pay?

 

[Senben19]

Personally id happilly take 20% cut for additional flex.

My employer currently mandates 3 in office days but annual leave and bank holidays count as in office and there is flex for personal circumstances. Anecdotally if they moved to 4 days, people either wouldnt comply or would leave.

And you are right, 1 day in the office is not a big burden if it doesn't have a major affect on productivity

I sumpathise with your scenario however ultimatly if its affecting your productivity then it is proving too much of a burden (on you) and so maybe, as you said, its a square to round hole scenario with you needing to consider this.

 

[Premos]

It's a similar thought process I've seen out of my manager to be honest, it's not the 80's anymore. And I would sincerely hope if there is a recession that any decent employer doesn't use that as a way to strong arm their staff into changing their terms of employment.
[/QUOTE]
If your manager is the issue, he will remain the issue even if you manage to stay working from home. Something else will arise.
I do understand your personal productivity issues but your company might have other priorities as mentioned above.
As for your terms and conditions, your job wasn't fully remote, it became remote during a very specific time. You don't have to look back to the 80s to see the impact of a recession on terms and conditions. In 2009, some employees were "encouraged" to take pay cut in order to avoid redundancy. I don't know the impact it could have on the wfh. However I know of companies where some areas were fully remote, some were fully onsite. The remote working areas of the business were the one affected when the business decided to do some changes and relocate. I don't say it was a direct consequence. It's just an observation.

 

[Samba ramba]

Thanks to everyone for the replies, they have been very informative & helpful. I'm still undecided what to do!
Despite some opinions this isn't an excercise to strong arm my own way. If that was the case I would have landed a few punches & demanded wfh full time with the threat of going down the legal route if not accommodated. That's not who I am as a person.
My perogative is to remain in a job I like, returning to wfh full time or near enough to it & staying off a toxic managers radar.
Thanks again for the sound advice.

 

[Purple]

Asking employees for a single day in the office is hardly a big burden, especially if most live close by and are not commuting 3 or 4 hours per day.

I find the whole conversation about working from home or in the office fascinating from a sociological perspective. During Covid all of the people who were setting policy on the government side, as well as all of the State employees who worked for them and advised them, worked in offices so they saw the world through that lens. The only people who didn't work in offices who got a consideration were the so called front line workers.

The reality is of course that the majority of the workforce don't work in offices and have to be present in their workplace to do their job. The vast majority of the people in retail, restaurants, personal services, farming, warehouses, manufacturing, food processing, transport and construction can't work from home. And that's most people who work.

At the moment it's a sellers market when it comes to labour. At some stage in the future it'll be a buyers market again. We'll see what happens.

 

[november16]

Interesting take on my problem. I suppose in a way you are right that dealing with a toxic manager should be more of a priority than securing wfh full time. The reason I'm not doing this is purely selfish - I've seen this guy in action & how he manages to conive & lie his way out of appalling behaviour. I can tell you I'm not the one to make him listen. The only way I can see that happening is through the court system & that's not a road I personally would take. As mentioned a former employee is in the process of suing them - maybe that might be the wake up call that's needed.
And you are right, 1 day in the office is not a big burden if it doesn't have a major affect on productivity. In my case it does does unfortunately.
The implication of jobs being on the line because an employee raises their head above the water for better conditions or help doesn't sit right with me. It's a similar thought process I've seen out of my manager to be honest, it's not the 80's anymore. And I would sincerely hope if there is a recession that any decent employer doesn't use that as a way to strong arm their staff into changing their terms of employment.

There is a particular slant of some on site who can’t resist lecturing you, which won’t assist you resolve anything, this is starting to creep in here, it’s supportive of old style authoritarian management.
They just don’t understand and never will as they are not in your situation. I completely understand your need for a reasonably quiet work office area for concentrated, focused work.
Nonsensical that an employer would be willing to accept errors, loss of revenue, which will occur as people are forced to complete eg payroll work in open plan offices where human being are literally working within inches of colleagues listening to, constant interruptions, people chattering loudly “not always about work”. They are human beings after all.
The manager does not appear to care about errors it appears, as it reflects on your reputation not his and the consequence affects you not him. You should be commended for taking your work seriously and trying to manage this work issue you are obviously a conscientious worker. It appears your manager wants you back in to “manage” seems to expect you to resolve his difficulties as he appears unable to resolve complex managerial difficulties on his own.

 

[Fortune]

I find the whole conversation about working from home or in the office fascinating from a sociological perspective. During Covid all of the people who were setting policy on the government side, as well as all of the State employees who worked for them and advised them, worked in offices so they saw the world through that lens. The only people who didn't work in offices who got a consideration were the so called front line workers.

The reality is of course that the majority of the workforce don't work in offices and have to be present in their workplace to do their job. The vast majority of the people in retail, restaurants, personal services, farming, warehouses, manufacturing, food processing, transport and construction can't work from home. And that's most people who work.

At the moment it's a sellers market when it comes to labour. At some stage in the future it'll be a buyers market again. We'll see what happens.

Life would be better for the people people in retail, restaurants, personal services, farming, warehouses, manufacturing, food processing, transport and construction if they didn't have to share their commute with people who didn't really need to be in an office.

 

[Blackrock1]

Life would be better for the people people in retail, restaurants, personal services, farming, warehouses, manufacturing, food processing, transport and construction if they didn't have to share their commute with people who didn't really need to be in an office.

who needs to be in an office is subjective, lots of people think they dont need to be in, but they do,

i see it in my own circle, people who cant countenance a return to the office and they cant see their career prospects suffering before their eyes.

 

[joe sod]

The reality is of course that the majority of the workforce don't work in offices and have to be present in their workplace to do their job. The vast majority of the people in retail, restaurants, personal services, farming, warehouses, manufacturing, food processing, transport and construction can't work from home. And that's most people who work.

Great points, also the essential workers during covid, the ones that manned the hospitals, stocked the supermarket shelves, collected the rubbish, grew the food, kept the us multinationals running were not working from home but were required to be in work every day. What's more the people WFH got tax credits from the government but the people required to drive to work every day are being penalised by carbon taxes and the restoration of the fuel excise duties despite the sky high fuel prices.