In a nutshell, yes they can.Can they do this?
Return or quit
There was the flummoxed investor who had told junior staff they should be in the office when clients visited, only to have those staff say: thanks for the feedback but I would rather keep working from home.
A consultant told me of a younger colleague who refused to travel abroad to client meetings any more, insisting they could be done online. And a financial adviser who fumed about young people logging in to important internal meetings where they kept their cameras off and said nothing.
Everybody talks about having a career nowadays but many people actually just want a job. If you structure your life around kids, hobbies, looking after elderly parents etc then the chances are you have a job, not a career, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all.
I think that's really important for lots of work related and personal wellbeing reasons.Plus there is the social element of work as well.
No, there is nothing wrong with just having a job. Younger people obviously start at the bottom and usually want to progress and earn more money. There then comes a time for a lot of people where the money is enough to have a family, buy a home etc and people are content. Others push on to progress to hirer roles.Everybody talks about having a career nowadays but many people actually just want a job. If you structure your life around kids, hobbies, looking after elderly parents etc then the chances are you have a job, not a career, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I think that's really important for lots of work related and personal wellbeing reasons.
I certainly think that younger people should be in the office. They will learn more by being around more senior people and have better career prospects by being noticed. You can be the best worker in the world, but if you are busily working at home, you aren't coming to the attention of your bosses as often, if at all. Plus there is the social element of work as well.
It's worth remembering that most people work in the SME sector where "a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this" just doesn't exist. If any of us is fortunate enough to have a job where this is an expectation then we should be thankful for our good fortune.Career prospects and promotion should not be based on 'being seen by your boss' in 2022. An individual should have a clear set of objectives defining what they are expected to achieve, a transparent promotion guidelines for expectations at the next level, and managers that support this. That is why it shouldn't really matter if they work from home or work in an office.
I work for a fully remote company after working in Financial services for years and through the pandemic. I have much clearer career prospects in my remote role than I did whilst working in an office.
I do agree that it is important to have a social connection and connect in person in teams. However, my last employer used the rational of 'knowledge transfer' when in the office which was just a lazy excuse.
And how much of that is down to weak management who don't understand their space, and just want their staff (the real SMEs) always on hand in case their boss asks a tough question!In some cases, management are so stuck in the dark ages that they think people have to work 9-5 and will only work if they are looking over their shoulder.
But if they are only asking specific staff to return - so won't they then have to justify why they are asking her specifically to return?In a nutshell, yes they can.
The Government has published draft legislation which will give employees a right to request to work remotely. But, even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request.
I suspect this is an increasingly common scenario. A lot of employers that I’m familiar with have basically issued “back to the office” directives in recent weeks.
No, there's no requirement at the moment for an employer to justify where a particular employee is required to work.But if they are only asking specific staff to return - so won't they then have to justify why they are asking her specifically to return?
"even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request."No, there's no requirement at the moment for an employer to justify where a particular employee is required to work.
It would be odd if the location they worked at was up the employee."even if enacted, an employer will have various grounds upon which they can decline such a request."
So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want? Demand an employee return to work even if they allow another employee in same role to work from home? Let's assume both employees have been in the company with same service duration.
Implicitly therefore the role can be done remotely.
The current draft legislation provides that an employer can decline a request to work remotely on any of the following grounds:So these grounds basically allow the employer to do what they want?
What's the point of the legislation then?It would be odd if the location they worked at was up the employee.
The employee is free to choose who they work for. The location is part of that decision.
So the OP's wife should be asking for which of these it was refused against. If other staff in same role can work remotely that would make questionable a decline under a-f, k, l, m. It would only be g-j.The current draft legislation provides that an employer can decline a request to work remotely on any of the following grounds:
(a) The Nature of the work not allowing for the work to be done remotely;
(b) Cannot reorganise work among existing staff;
(c) Potential Negative impact on quality of business product or service;
(d) Potential Negative impact on performance of employee or other employees;
(e) Burden of Additional Costs, taking into account the financial and other costs entailed and the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business;
(f) Concerns for the protection of business confidentiality or intellectual property;
(g) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on health and safety grounds;
(h) Concerns for the suitability of the proposed workspace on data protection grounds;
(i) Concerns for the internet connectivity of the proposed remote working location;
(j) Concerns for the commute between the proposed remote working location and employer’s on-site location;
(k) The proposed remote working arrangement conflicts with the provisions of an applicable collective agreement;
(l) Planned structural changes would render any of (a) to (k) applicable; or
(m) Employee is the subject of ongoing or recently concluded formal disciplinary process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?