Flexible working

concerneduk2020

viable option.

Hoenir

You can challenge whatever you like. Whether your employer will be in agreement is another matter. Companies efficiency, productivity, growth etc are far more complex than people simply doing their jobs. Now a proven fact in the US that new starters feel disenfranchised, struggle to build relationships, fail to receive a good company induction when not either not office based or other employees are entirely WFH. 

 No employee is indispensable. Never over value your worth to the company. Where one resides and work is a personal choice. Employers aren't interested in micro managing employees. They just want to get on with the real business of the company. 

Marcon

concerneduk2020 said:

Hi, wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation to this? I accepted a role on the understanding that while it would be hybrid I would only be expected into the office 1-2 a month. Almost everyone I work with directly is either full time home based or based outside of the UK. My office location is listed in my contract as London, but I have emails to show that both HR and my line manager had agreed that I would be primarily remote only coming in to the office 1-2 days a month. I’m now kicking myself as the company is making all hybrid workers come into the office 3 days a week. People on remote contracts are not expected to return to the office, so if I go back to the office I will spend all my time on Teams calls because my colleagues are remote. I am the only person on my direct team who does my exact job, but there are people in the wider business in similar roles to mine who work remotely and won’t have to return to the office. I have been doing my role successfully for 2 years from home. Has anyone successfully challenged a return to office mandate in a similar situation. Can they refuse a flexible working request from me if others are working remotely. As I say, kicking myself for not getting it written into my contract when I signed up, but too late now. It’s a 3 hour commute each way to the office so returning isn’t a viable option.

They can refuse anything they like, as can you. In both scenarios there could be 'consequences' eg they might lose a valued employee who quits, you might lose a job.

What other people have or haven't done in 'a similar situation' is largely irrelevant. They aren't you and they aren't your employer. You've been there for two years - long enough to make an impact. It is also long enough to gain valuable employment protections, but even so, your negotiating strength will depend heavily on how well you've performed during that period and how much of an asset you are to the business - as seen through the eyes of management. 

gm0

You need to think about your current stakeholder(s).  How happy are they with your work.  What is the cycle for any feedback.  What if anything do you do or bring that is in any way unique / would take time and effort to recreate.

Can you prompt such a discussion.  If the situation is as you hope - that you are valued for your contribution and perform some particular things which are hard to hand off.

Then the segue is to a verbal discussion about a few facts.  If you have an established and positive relationship with this manager then a verbal conversation about the announced policy and its potential impact on you that is worrying and could they share their perspective informally - could be tacked on the end of  that.

- how you have worked to date (just had a conversation that this was WFH and successful).

- As you know I live in X.  (implicit you live too far to adapt to the return to work mandate as is)

- No plans to move at present given family support (implication that's not changing)

- Happy here.  You are happy to continue doing the work and remaining employed - but won't be resigning (nor indeed coming into the office *quite as much* as they now say they want - keep this implicit for as long as possible)

You go only as far into this discussion as it takes for them to indicate if they are a) shutting down the discussion b) hinting by what they do and don't say - that they will continue to ignore out of policy WFH (for the mismatch contract0 for now - if the work gets done.   "output is the most important".  "we'll see how it goes".   "I'll make sure you get notice of particularly important team events". 

If this about WFH and the various issues it causes to the long term health of an organisation.  On which reasonable people disagree.  I am firmly in the box that innovation, serendipity, informal contact, mentoring of the new and young, knowledge sharing, better done face to face mixed project team activities - are all essential for the long term health of the body corporate. And so large scale 100% WFH is a disease to be cured or severely pruned - kept to isolated and admin functions where it matters less because of the workforce model for those things in this company and how they interact (or don't) with others.  If it is about WFH and culture. And a swing back from Covid excess.  Then you do have a long term problem if they stick with it.

Or perhaps the new policy is merely a tactic in work force adjustment to spring a few people loose by other means.  Other noises about bonus, cuts, budgets, financials, sales should make it clear if a downturn driven workforce adjustment is happening or imminent.

Or a new executive has a bee in their bonnet and its a whim.  But the half life of executives is often quite short.  East wind. West Wind.

A local line manager cannot openly "agree" it with you or instantly revise your contract - as they should be treating people (in each category) fairly.  So agreeing something special with one for not good reason and writing it down is a no no.  They could restructure the team to make a WFH role for you to apply for.  But the current tide of affairs may make that option unattractive (leadership and HR attitude to it) - for the moment. 

But sins of omission i.e. failing to spot your non-compliance are more forgiveable than documented ones of commission. Or trying to move the role definition and contract against the current tide.

Absent good alternatives - your line manager has a choice.  Ignore the non-compliance.  Or discipline you for it. And start a recruitment or restructure.  Or signpost you to a WFH opportunity on another team. Open up the slot and recruit into it.

Contracts are contracts.  I had a corporate job with an office named in it.  Barely went there. Mostly was at clients.  And some WFH.  But employment contracts do have a "normal place of work". And have done for decades.

A more legalistic approach i.e. starting a dispute about policy and contract and involving HR/legal forecloses the quietly ignore and wait for the wind to change again approach as they can't really do that once you start a fight.

I would tread softly.

If you don't have engaged line management to do this with - that tells you something else. 

Keep your head down.  Do as you want. Produce the goods. Let them sweat it. If they notice.   And if they do notice.  Stick the flexible working request in then.  Then apply for a WFH role (same skills) in a different team. Or do that anyway.  Later on "anxiety" and WFH as a reasonable adjustment request can spin things out some more.

If they are serious about the mandate - and if you play games with them - they will mentally flip the switch to decide to end you at some point.  The rest is then colouring in.  If performing to objectives - performance PIP will be impossible. So they will change the objectives to make them missable. And then you miss them. Longwinded though.  Leaving redundancy requiring a full exercise.  And disciplinary/conduct over policy.  Or offering a compromise agreement £ to quit.  We want this role in the office >60% we can see by behaviour (and personal situation) that's not you.  So we are hiring. You should be finding a job where you live.  Here is the offer to leave now. Tribunal free.

But the wind could change again well before that.  And it could be months or even years before it comes to a head.

That's all with my "you" hat.  Wearing my "them" (senior level policy setter hat). 

Hybrid means a mixed arrangement which can change. What you thought it meant or that it meant something fixed forever was and is naive.  And in any event - details and prior art notwithstanding it is now superceded by changing business needs.  And the new policy is this.  Where you live is your choice and your problem.  Travel more. Lodge weekly.  Live closer. Apply for a different role.  BTW. No new 100% WFH roles are being hired.  Shape up or ship out.  This is the new policy. Comply. Resign. Accept consequences of not choosing one of these.  Tick one.

What your specific team lead will do - faced with the unhappy choice of replacing you or quietly ignoring things and muddling through - is another matter entirely.  You need to read the situation on the ground. And act accordingly.  A lot of organisations talk a big game on new policies to be applied everywhere - but then carry a very tiny stick.

And others - often quite destructively - are oddly persistent to implement something even when it is damaging or self defeating in some way. Large organisations do as they do.  And team and individual circumstances are not top of mind.