Employer refusing to allow working from home

TELLIT01

bartelbe said:

I can't stand dinosaur employers like this. If they have employees who can work from home, why not let them? As long as the work is done, who cares where it is done?

Now my job can't be done from home but I don't resent those who have jobs that can be. In fact by working from home you helped me, my commute was far more relaxing without you all pointlessly getting in my way.

It is not being a dinosaur if the company knows/believes their network is not capable of supporting all staff if they try to work from home.  If their systems will fail if more than x% of staff try to work remotely there is no point in allowing twice 'x' to do so.  It is also true that some staff will not perform to an acceptable level unless they are supervised.

Dakta

It's a bit more complex isn't it, you get people who could in theory do a job from home, you let them go home. Productivity drops for a variety of reasons that you probably can think of but can't prove and you bring them back in, or bring certain people back in. Suddenly you're analogous to t-rex, and all you wanted to do was throw some money at getting a task done.

unforeseen

TELLIT01 said:

bartelbe said:

I can't stand dinosaur employers like this. If they have employees who can work from home, why not let them? As long as the work is done, who cares where it is done?

Now my job can't be done from home but I don't resent those who have jobs that can be. In fact by working from home you helped me, my commute was far more relaxing without you all pointlessly getting in my way.

It is not being a dinosaur if the company knows/believes their network is not capable of supporting all staff if they try to work from home.  If their systems will fail if more than x% of staff try to work remotely there is no point in allowing twice 'x' to do so.  It is also true that some staff will not perform to an acceptable level unless they are supervised.

I work for a nationwide company with around 10000 employees. At the start of the pandemic, everybody who could work from home was told to. That is when they found that although the internal network was sufficient for the work, the VPN system and incoming infrastructure struggled to cope with the additional load. They had to resort to bringing certain functions/users back into the office to prevent things grinding to a halt.
They also found that there were quite a few users whose broadband connection was fine for email and Teams but could not cope with some work related tasks they needed to do. 

TELLIT01

unforeseen said:

TELLIT01 said:

bartelbe said:

I can't stand dinosaur employers like this. If they have employees who can work from home, why not let them? As long as the work is done, who cares where it is done?

Now my job can't be done from home but I don't resent those who have jobs that can be. In fact by working from home you helped me, my commute was far more relaxing without you all pointlessly getting in my way.

It is not being a dinosaur if the company knows/believes their network is not capable of supporting all staff if they try to work from home.  If their systems will fail if more than x% of staff try to work remotely there is no point in allowing twice 'x' to do so.  It is also true that some staff will not perform to an acceptable level unless they are supervised.

I work for a nationwide company with around 10000 employees. At the start of the pandemic, everybody who could work from home was told to. That is when they found that although the internal network was sufficient for the work, the VPN system and incoming infrastructure struggled to cope with the additional load. They had to resort to bringing certain functions/users back into the office to prevent things grinding to a halt.
They also found that there were quite a few users whose broadband connection was fine for email and Teams but could not cope with some work related tasks they needed to do. 

That's exactly what I was talking about 'unforeseen'.  Nearly everbody who works for my wife's employer is now working from home but some are finding their internet connection is simply not up to doing the job.  The company has actually paid to improve connectivity for some people but not all employers would do that, and not all company infrastructures can cope even if they did.

Savvy_Sue

We're small, and had the facility to work remotely. But we've had to improve the VPN access to accommodate the increased use, and several colleagues are struggling with their Wi-Fi at home so I spend a proportion of each day troubleshooting. Which means less time for what I'd normally be doing ...

Thrugelmir

bartelbe said:

I can't stand dinosaur employers like this. If they have employees who can work from home, why not let them? As long as the work is done, who cares where it is done?

Perhaps there's a bigger issue than just getting work done. You've a view of the employer but aren't in possession of the full facts. A far from uncommon perspective. 

Where it is done is a potential issue. H&S ideally requires a risk assessment to be performed. 

Andy_L

I've just noticed that the guidance has changed (no idea when) it now says
"To help contain the virus, everyone who can work effectively from home should do so." (my bold). Presumably to stop all the confusion over what "can work from home" means

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tier-4-stay-at-home#going-to-work

ToxicWomble

Who determines the “can” though - the employer I would suggest

unforeseen

ToxicWomble said:

Who determines the “can” though - the employer I would suggest

Can you work from home effectively if you have your laptop on a coffee table or in your lap? Or while having young children running around (sometimes because you cancelled childcare because you are WFH) ? Just 2 common examples of the situation people are finding themselves in. 
I would say the answer to that is NO.

ToxicWomble

Maybe I should have said “can be considered for wfh”
It is for the employer to determine whether the work can possibly be done from home - whether the practicalities from the employee aspect allow it are another thing