Return to Office - WWSTWD?

Probably not much you can do other than a quiet word with your boss to scope out any flexibility: test the waters. Otherwise, it’s time to update your CV…

What does your contract state?

What does your contract say? Does it say "home based care of x"?

Where do I stand?

By the water cooler having a moan!? Sorry!

It really is down to what is in your contract though. If the ‘no-one ever goes into the office’ was only verbal I’m not sure what you could do other than look for another job.

There’s a reason they didn’t drop the massive overheads a London office would create.

Just keep quiet as they'll be other folk who've been there far longer than you , who are far more valuable/senior etc who've a similar issue with it - let them fight the battle, but, I would also have a Plan B...

Working from home is part of something called Flexible Working which is a legal right. If you want to work from home and are able to do so then submit a formal request (called a "statutory application"), your employer either has to let you or provide a valid reason why you cannot. These reasons are documented and "we don't want you to" isn't good enough.

It's nothing to do with whatever may or may not already be in your contract, and the US office can mandate what they like for their US employees because you don't work in the US.

Here you go.

https://www.gov.uk/flexible-working/print

"WWSTWD?" I'd probably just ignore it and carry on doing my job as usual, see if anyone actually cared sufficiently to make an issue of it. A four hour round trip three times a week for no practical reason other than "someone several thousand miles away said so" is an absolutely ludicrous proposition, bollocks to that for a game of soldiers.

If you want to work from home and are able to do so then submit a formal request, your employer either has to let you or provide a valid reason

And other than being written in some guidance somewhere - has this ever been successfully used by a fit healthy individual against an employer who has actively.mandated your return to work.

I've seen many folks fail in their attempts based around "family reasons" .the only successful attempts were folk either high risk or actively Ill folks.

I’ve seen many folks fail in their attempts based around “family reasons” .the only successful attempts were folk either high risk or actively Ill folks.

This is arse-backwards. They don't have to justify why they want to. The onus is on their employer to justify why they can't.

From the gov.uk link above,

Reasons for rejecting
Employers can reject an application for any of the following reasons:

extra costs that will damage the business
the work cannot be reorganised among other staff
people cannot be recruited to do the work
flexible working will affect quality and performance
the business will not be able to meet customer demand
there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times
the business is planning changes to the workforce

This is arse-backwards. They don’t have to justify why they want to. The onus is on their employer to justify why they can’t.

For anyone that's mandated you back into the office that is so laughably easy* I can see why it fails magnificently.

* Assuming their HR can read and follow guidance .... Not always a given.

But anyway.

I'd start with .

When you hired me you were fully aware i lived xxxx away and I'm not moving.

How do you propose we sort this? Clearly coming to the office on a regular basis from this distance without good reason is a waste of time /money and an enviromental disaster in a time when we should be cutting unneccesary journeys- it's quite probably at odds with your ESG policy (if you have one)

Pre pandemic I was office based. During and post pandemic I was told to work from home and it was going to stay that way, so I invested in a good chair and office setup. Gradually it started being asked to go in 1 day per week and more recently 2 times, but actually being hinted you should be there more.

Ive actually just started a new job sold as home working , and they do have no office space, but I do need to read my new contract and see what it states

I feel for you OP, but unless you have been there 2yrs prob not a leg to stand on, and what ever happens, if that’s what they want, that’s what they will get

For anyone that’s mandated you back into the office that is so laughably easy I can see why it fails magnificently.

Which one of the only acceptable reasons I just listed would you say is the laughably easy one? (I appreciate we probably just crossed posts there.)

extra costs that will damage the business - WFH likely saves the business money.
the work cannot be reorganised among other staff - not relevant to a WFH request.
people cannot be recruited to do the work - not relevant to a WFH request.
flexible working will affect quality and performance - the OP has been demonstrating their performance for months.
the business will not be able to meet customer demand - not relevant to a WFH request.
there’s a lack of work to do during the proposed working times - not relevant to a WFH request.
the business is planning changes to the workforce - not relevant to a WFH request.

Really the only one that has any bearing is the "quality and performance" one. Some jobs obviously can't be done from home because there is a practical or physical element, for instance.

Glad you took the time to talk me through the board as if it was misunderstood.

You seem to have applied your business role to alot of them. There's a few you have ruled out that I could quite easily count in in various other industry's so I can understand why you don't see it an easy rebuttal.

Unless you are a lone worker with no reports and no project based team work there are justifiable(albe it bullshit) reasons for not having you work at home that fall under a few of those lines.

As I said at the start by the letter of the gov guidance your right. Back in the real world you'll find it considerably harder to get your WFH dream after the management have mandated you back.

But anyway.

I’d start with .

I'd start with "I live two hours away, you must be ****ing joking."

I'd probably continue with "I'm happy to do it if you pay me the 50 hours overtime I'll be doing each month plus travel expenses."

I'd probably close with "what happens in the London office closes, will I be expected to be in the San Francisco office three times a week?"

Something else has just hit me. But that's another post.

I’d start with “I live two hours away, you must be **** joking.”

I've seen that play out twice they no longer work for their respective company* hence the framing of you knew where I lived when you hired me

*They both moved during lockdown in the fairy land dream that they thought this WFH would last for ever. One from Aberdeen to Thurso and the other from Aviemore to Stranraer

From a tax point of view (and possibly contractually, I'm not sure?) your regular place of work is defined where you are most often. So if you're in the office three times a week you are ispo facto office based. If you're in the office twice a week, you're still home based. Amongst other things, this stops people playing silly bastards by deciding they're based miles away and then claiming inflated travel expenses.

You seem to have applied your business role to alot of them. There’s a few you have ruled out that I could quite easily count in in various other industry’s so I can understand why you don’t see it an easy rebuttal.

Fair perhaps. But - to my interpretation at any rate - most of those are aimed at people wanting things like reduced hours.

Regardless. The point is that if the business is going to reject a formal request then they are legally obliged to justify that decision. How easy or difficult that may be would I suppose be situational, yes. 's not really relevant here until that's happened.

Slight tweak to @cougars original reply.

"Working from home is part of something called Flexible Working which is a legal right."

It is your legal right to _request_ flexible working and have it properly considered. Flexible working isn't itself a legal right. Sorry to cougar if that's what he meant?

The point is that if the business is going to reject a formal request then they are legally obliged to justify that decision

But does the employee then have to take them to a tribunal/court if they refuse a request? If so most employees would just find a new job.

If yoir contract states yoir place of work then thats your recognised place of work, relocating to San Francisco is a material change to your contact so not the same as expecting you to honour your contract.

You have a right to request flexible working, providing some reasoning will give it more weight, I have family commitments of x, y and z would be more compelling than I don't want to go in.

In reality the company can usually fairly easily turn it down, no doubt they would cite the desire to return to the office is due to their belief that productivity and collaboration will be enhanced, even if working from home is currently working.

To be honest it sounds like head office in the States has made a blanket decision, it'll be down to local HR to deal with the fallout. If they are a half decent UK employer there may be some room for sense, if like many American companies it's very alpha male they will have their hands tied.

I'd wait for a formal instruction to return, whack in a flexible working request but be calm and polite. You've got no real employment rights as you've been there less than 2 years, it'll all come down to how dictatorial head office management are and how much they want to keep you. It's likely the commitment to WFH was made in good faith but it's now been superseded by a higher power.

You joined on the basis of a fully remote working basis and subsequently “established” that from an employment law perspective through the ongoing working arrangements.

Should the employer try and force you to change the agreed working practices without a clear basis for doing so there’s a pretty good basis for a constructive dismissal claim down the line.

I’d try to highlight the agreements made at the time of hiring any relevant contractual evidence and try and resolve it amicably - but also be prepared to fire a warning shot across the bows of HR at an appropriate point.

If it’s an American owned / led company this kind of stuff is often complicated by the fact HR people in the States are often pretty ignorant about employment laws in other countries - even small efforts to highlight relevant local legal constraints result in the employee being deemed “awkward”.

Good luck!

Flexible working isn't a legal right. The right to request flexible working is. And as I understand, the onus has shifted from the employee to the employer to justify any decision made.

For me, the oddest thing is your team has been moved to fully remote working by business decision; it might be hard for them to reverse that without evidencing why. But only hard if they need to win at employment tribunal.

Would agree with the comment above, if your entire team has adjusted well to remote working, there will be significant resistance. And fundamentally, you're not actually able to sensibly comply with their request. Make it known, and sadly buff up the CV as recommended above.

Constructive dismissal is very hard to win and not really applicable to the OP due to length of service, they can terminate employment with notice without a real need to explain why. It's easy to talk about tribunals but in reality the system doesn't really work for employees unless you're supported by union cash and representation and you have an employer who will not be vindictive if you win, I.e. public sector. In reality tribunals are expensive, stressful, time consuming and the pay outs generally not worth the hassle and it doesn't stop employers behaving like dicks.

I'd just have a quiet word with your manager. Explain your position etc, get validation that your works upto standard....

No point going full nuclear on something that hasn't happened yet.

@trail_rat

from Aviemore to Stranraer

Had they committed some crime against humanity and were practising for an eternity of hell?

duncancallum
Full Member

I’d just have a quiet word with your manager. Explain your position etc, get validation that your works upto standard….

Yep, surprised more people haven't suggested this. Keep it informal and casual, make them aware you're concerned, see if they can be any more forthcoming with info. If nothing else the response will be enlightening and it shouldn't cost you anything unless the relationship's borderline toxic anyway.

It is your legal right to _request_ flexible working and have it properly considered. Flexible working isn’t itself a legal right. Sorry to cougar if that’s what he meant?

With the crux there being "properly considered," yes.

But does the employee then have to take them to a tribunal/court if they refuse a request? If so most employees would just find a new job.

Perhaps. As I said earlier, it's not really relevant at this point. Taking a current employer to tribunal isn't generally considered a great career move though. 😁

Cougar's well-intentioned post is off the mark. You don't have a right to flexible working. At best, you have a right to ask for it and for that request to be considered reasonably.

HR people in the States are often pretty ignorant about employment laws in other countries

HR people are often pretty ignorant about employment laws in their own countries - like our HR team that's insisting they can reject all flexible working requests because there is a blanket policy of rejecting them! 🙄

Less than nine months service?
Goodwill and fairness considerations?
US parent company?
Unfortunately, my only comment is...good luck.

Just keep quiet as they’ll be other folk who’ve been there far longer than you , who are far more valuable/senior etc who’ve a similar issue with it – let them fight the battle, but, I would also have a Plan B…

This is probably the immediate answer, along with dusting down the CV again. Your position is far more precarious given your length of employment.

Cougar’s well-intentioned post is off the mark. You don’t have a right to flexible working. At best, you have a right to ask for it and for that request to be considered reasonably.

After 26 weeks employment you have a right to Flexible Working which can be reasonably rejected by an employer for the reasons I listed above which I copied from gov.uk (and to the best of my knowledge, only for those reasons). It is a formal process, they cannot just blanket refuse a Statutory Request. If say you asked to work a reduced 4-day week and they didn't have the labour to cover the shortfall in hours, that's a legitimate rejection; if they said no just because they didn't want you to then they're acting unlawfully.

You have the right to ask for anything, that's surely meaningless? I could ask work for a gilt chaise longue, 1980s-era Kelly Le Brock and a catering pack of Swarfega (and my employer could after reasonable consideration respond "you're daft, go away" without requiring any further justification).

Where am I off the mark here? Have I missed / misunderstood something?

Yeah that's a nice idea Cougar but not how it works in practice.

The reasons for rejection give absolutely acres of room for even the most dim-witted management to refuse. There is basically no objective information that can be used here so hard to argue definitely either way. Plus it sounds like the OP is recent hire so could be punted no reasons given, not really a strong starting point for going in Billy Big Bollocks and telling your employer they're acting unlawfully (in the employee's unqualified opinion).

Intheborders has it nailed, let others who are longer served & have more clout in the business fight it out but be prepared to jump if needed.

And Stranraer to aviemore I get but in reverse not si much.

Though there are some lovely bits on the Rhinns

Like you, i have a role currently where the commute to the office is/would be unworkable. I told them this up front.

My contract states something like 'your home office is x and expected to attend the office 3 days per week unless other arrangements have been made with your line manager'.
So i have an agreement with line manager its WFH unless really need me in the office. Ive been to the office 4 times in 6 months.

HOWEVER. As other have said, if they pull rank (and my manager has said also) - if they demand you in the office, your contract states that and not much else you can do.
They know the consequences of that action. If enforced, they shall have my resignation microseconds later.

So my advice, as above, keep WFH until someone notices/starts complaining, and have a quiet word in you managers ear and clearly state your position (again).
But get that CV spruced up in case.

Id start job hunting. If nothing else a job offer gives you leverage with the current employer.

It's trivially easy for a company to turn down a flexible working request for an employee that wants to WFH and the employee would need ultimately need to challenge that through a tribunal - who's going to do that in a situation like the OPs?

It sucks that the circumstances have been changed like that but there's really nothing the OP can do apart from make the case they can't do the role if not WFH and then it's up to the company if they value him enough to make an exception or not. If they refuse to then in reality the OP has very little choice but to seek employment elsewhere, you can argue about contracts and rights all you want but he's been there less than 2 years and could very easily be managed out anyway. Sure if the he was in a union etc. etc. it might give other options but it would still probably mean little in this scenario.

Heard of loads of US owned companies demanding staff go back into the office - I'm surprised its taken this long for you.

Talk to your manager, and start job hunting. Messing around with contracts and law soon becomes more pain than gain

I would look for a new job. I took a new role on in July last year, was promised remote/semi hybrid work which was discussed in depth in my interview. Was very honest and told them all the reasons I much prefer WFH, better mental health, calmer work space with less noise and no over stimulation which helps with me being Neurodivergent as I'm less tired and distracted and can focus on tasks at hand, less overall stress, more productive due to less time spent in traffic and more time actually at my laptop etc, they grilled me on how I could manage a team working remotely but I had all the answers as I'd already been doing it effectively at last job since the pandemic started. I did agree that whenever I am needed in the office, important meetings, requirement of 1-1's with team members etc I'd happily come in for the day, we agreed on 1-2 days a week during my probation period.

Never appeared to be an issue and I got the job. Roughly 1 month before my probation period ended a high senior member of staff over looking another department that we have a lot of dealings with tried to force me and my team back into the office mandatory for 3 days a week in order to benefit his department, I explained to my boss's boss that I wouldn't have took the job if that was the case and I'll happily look for a new one.
This went up the corporate chain until it got to one of my seniors 4 positions above mine who for context, when I took this team over it was a shambles, I put in lots of hard work and we're now one of the better performing teams, he got wind of this and squashed the notion with something along the lines of "this team is doing better than the rest and some of the members havent been in the office since march 2020, bringing them back to the office on a mandatory basis will cause more harm than good, leave them be"

Since then I've been going to the office less and less but if they did try to change that I would look for a new job again, my performance drastically suffers the day I am in the office and the day after due to how much of a drain it has on me mentally

So my advice, as above, keep WFH until someone notices/starts complaining, and have a quiet word in you managers ear and clearly state your position (again).
But get that CV spruced up in case.

This. But also be aware that if the rest of the team ends up being office based then being the sole remote team member can sometimes be a bit crap - depends on team and company dynamics.

@politecameraaction

HR people are often pretty ignorant about employment laws in their own countries – like our HR team that’s insisting they can reject all flexible working requests because there is a blanket policy of rejecting them!

Blue Rewards?

Our Lords and Masters decided to have a global return to work, 100%, for all office staff after summer vacation last year.

We've apparently got about 18000 white collar staff globally and chairs for about 2/3rds of them. (some sites have less than 40% coverage, mine has about 85-90%)

That worked well.

So, a local/regional negotiation means I'm officially 30% home/70% in office, i need to deal with my Director and HR to change this. On the other hand, my manager simply can't be bothered to go through the paperwork, so he lets us do what we want within reason.

I'd carry on as you are and see what the fall out is.
But update CV and start looking around.

And as TAFKASTR is well aware, all us home workers just toss it off and do nothing all day, so you'll have plenty of time to look for a new job. /s

Our policy is 2 days a week in the office. I go in once a month for a face to face team get together, as do the rest of the team. If there's a need to do something in person then I'll go in for that but otherwise I don't see the point in spending 90 mins of my day travelling somewhere to work (arguably less effectively) than I can from home. My contract hasn't changed since pre-pandemic so still says I'm office based.

As with all policies it comes down to how it's being enforced - if your boss doesn't make a big deal of it then there's no problem, so if you get on with them just have a quiet chat rather than a full on fight with corporate HR.

Have I missed / misunderstood something?

Yes - the second sentence of the page on gov.uk that you yourself linked to. "All employees have the legal right to request flexible working - not just parents and carers."

And also ss80F-80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which say that the employee may apply and the employer shall consider reasonably and may refuse the application on a broad range of grounds.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/part/8A

And also every bit of sensible commentary by informed people:
https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/blogs/flexible-working-a-day-one-right-to-request-not-a-right-to-have/
If you have the right to something e.g. the National Minimum Wage or non-discrimination on the basis of race, the employer has to give it to you, come what may. They don't get to choose. They don't get to decide on a reasonable basis after 3 months' consideration. They just have to do it.

Blue Rewards?

No, some other big stupid company. Tbh I bet there are loads of them.

Yes – the second sentence of the page on gov.uk that you yourself linked to. “All employees have the legal right to request flexible working – not just parents and carers.”

And also ss80F-80G of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which say that the employee may apply and the employer shall consider reasonably and may refuse the application on a broad range of grounds.

Yes, but.

"may refuse the application on a broad range of grounds." Those grounds are legally defined. They can only refuse a request based on one or more those reasons (that you yourself just linked to). They cannot just say no without qualification. There is of course going to be situations where fulfilling a request isn't possible.

I never meant that you could just go "I'm working from home now as per my legal right to flexible working, sucks boo yah" and apologies if that's how it appeared, I thought I'd been clear but maybe not.

Something else that occurred to me this morning,

Does this company not have remote workers? Sales reps, field engineers, that sort of thing? It would be implausible to suggest that staff whose very job is to travel round the country attending customer sites should be in the office sitting on their hands for three days a week. So surely this "return to office" policy must only apply to office-based workers. And the OP isn't an office-based worker, they're home-based.

right... so the UK cascade came quicker than expected. They're mandating two days in the office per week and strongly advocating a 3rd.

They have also drawn a map of what they deem to be London area (which is the catchment). I am 2 mins from the border line, would you believe. It is drawn up on county boundaries. I have colleagues just on the other side who are exempt and also, their travel paid when they do have to visit the office.

The sickener for me is that I was approached by this company and they used remote working as the leverage to take me from my previous company (a competitor with whom I was quite content and not actively looking). They wanted the industry experience made the approach knowing ordinarily this would not be an option to me because of distance. This went through at Vice President level. Has been great for just shy of a year.

This decision has now been trumped at CEO level. The announcement saying that the company needs have changed and if they suffer initial attrition, then they are prepared. They've also suggested a recruitment policy to look for local people moving forward rather than the "100% candidate" that may exist further afield.

I'm gobsmacked, TBH. The f***ers.

Moral of the story is never work for a US company or subsidary. There is almost zero worker protection in the US and the overwhelming culture is presentism. Hire and fire is a daily occurrence, staff turnover is crazy and CEO's renumuration is based on shareholder not staff satisfaction.

They still think its the 80's basically

similar-ish happening to me, changed jobs from a position where I was employed as a "home worker" but pre-covid used to go the office most days, though vehicle and fuel provided by the company as often needed for site visits.

Changed company in September, office based but expectation was two days in the office, which was bearable. We were informed yesterday that the policy is changing to a minimum of three days per week in the office and i fear this will increase to four days by summer.

Just doesnt work for me so have started applying for other jobs

Can see this pattern becoming more common as the year progresses for other employers

Is that not constructive dismissal?

They’re mandating two days in the office per week and strongly advocating a 3rd.

They have also drawn a map of what they deem to be London area (which is the catchment). I am 2 mins from the border line, would you believe. It is drawn up on county boundaries. I have colleagues just on the other side who are exempt and also, their travel paid when they do have to visit the office.

Look into this. I don't fully understand this as it's second-hand info, but my understanding is that if you're in the office three days a week then you're an office worker, two days a week you're a home worker. In the latter case, they should be paying you travel expenses. AIUI this is HMRC's approach for tax purposes.

Honestly, at this point I'd be jobseeking.

Much depends on your contract and more importantly, your manager's approach. We have moved to a minimum of 2 (or 3) days in the office. So that's two then. This is not being monitored on a personal basis. It's not even obvious we'll all fit in the new office. I would have a reasonable discussion with your manager regarding your situation, but be prepared to look for another job and/or formal home working as an option - perhaps with a monthly trip to the site as a gesture of goodwill on your part (see Rule 1). I know of one company who have mandated three days per week on site, monitored, and bonus will be based on attendance! Expect retention issues. The workplace has moved on. Sunk cost infrastructure like new offices will be a dragging cost for years to come.

I can see these companies struggling to recruit as the working option's have changed since covid, and staff just aren't accepting being demanded to be in the office. We're hybrid and it's been decided upto 3 days a week in the office. Many do two, some do four. Anyone we've recruited has asked about working arrangements - if it was five days in, I doubt we'd get any acceptances. Unfortunately, your UK CEO will have to bend over to the US Overlords and the US employers have a poor record for employee rights.

I personally chose to do three days a week, as I'm a decent cycle commute from the office - 10-13 miles each way, so that's a decent guaranteed miles on the bike each week (all weathers), and it's way quicker and more enjoyable than the car.

I'd start looking for another job, employers are short on staff at the moment, so you shouldn't have any issues.

@Cougar

Looks like the OP is contractually an office worker - from the first post - probably less of an issue now as things have accelerated for him.

I can see all the benefits of working at home and "saving" the travel time, being more productive etc and while not all companies are going to look for a return to office life post covid, I can see a lot more companies wanting bums on the seats they are paying for.

Look into this. I don’t fully understand this as it’s second-hand info, but my understanding is that if you’re in the office three days a week then you’re an office worker, two days a week you’re a home worker. In the latter case, they should be paying you travel expenses. AIUI this is HMRC’s approach for tax purposes.

You'd need to check the specifics, but there's no "should", they CAN pay you travel expenses and HMRC won't tax them, but there's nothing to force them (apart from minimum wage). Most employers IME will deem wherever you've been asked to go that day as the office and won't pay travel costs for that. So if you have 2x offices for 2 days each an 1 day at home, none of that is reimbursable either in the companies eyes or HMRC. But if you drove into office A 4 days a week, then onto site B in the afternoon on 2 days, then A->B is reimbursable. Similarly if they put you up in a hotel locally to B, then home->hotel->B becomes reimbursable.

if they suffer initial attrition, then they are prepared.

Depends on your circumstances and the industry job market but I'd be inclined to test this. Unless your salary was already heavily London weighted I suspect they'll either find it more expensive to replace you than they think or there'll be companies looking to save on London weighted sallaries for roles that can be done remotely.

Sounds like a handy way to get rid of staff without paying redundancy to me.

Everyone has a contracted work location (not home vs office). If you/the company agreed to have that adjusted in your contract of employment to your home address when you came in, then they are now altering your contract by changing the work location to the office address and there needs to be some process around that (but ultimately if they want it to happen...).

If you didn't have this put in your contract then I think a lesson learned?

And what Horatio said - sounds like headcount might be too high and they are after some self managed exits.

I think the headcount thing is real. Before COVID we had teams distributed across Europe. Some worked from home. some in the office. We had zero issues with folk being in the office when needed for things like team meetings, all hands etc. Post covid there's a mandated return to the office in a way that did not exist before, so it's not really a return to a previous way of working, just heading in a new direction. My feeling is that large US companies, some with a tech focus, grew exponentially during 2019-2022 and then took a hit in the media when layoffs started to happen. This isn't about improved collaboration, it's about reducing costs through attrition whilst protecting reputation.

Looks like the OP is contractually an office worker – from the first post – probably less of an issue now as things have accelerated for him.

Would WFH permanently since May not change that even if it's not actually written down? I thought that your "regular place of work" was defined as where you actually work most often. I'm fairly sure that's how HMRC define it, at least.

I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I've heard multiple field engineers complaining about coming into the office too often in case they get reclassified as office-based. Whether that was because of tax concerns, or something specific to our organisation, (or they just made it up because they couldn't be arsed,) I don't know.

Most employers IME will deem wherever you’ve been asked to go that day as the office and won’t pay travel costs for that. So if you have 2x offices for 2 days each an 1 day at home, none of that is reimbursable either in the companies eyes or HMRC.

Our place will pay travel expenses from your regular place of work to whatever destination you need to be at. So if I normally attend an office but have to do a site visit one day, mileage is calculated from that office even if I don't actually go in to the office first. If the site and the office are in opposite directions from home then I'm quids in, but crucially it means that I can't milk the system by nominating whichever start point is furthest away from the destination every time I have to make a visit. I believe that this policy is in line with HMRC, but how typical it is of other organisations I don't know.

In your example, AFAIK if you were at two different offices twice a week you'd still have to have one of those two declared as your regular place of work and that's defined by where you actually are rather than what it says on a contract. I don't really know how you'd calculate that if it was an equal share, though it surely must be a fairly edge case?

I'm increasingly thinking that I'm getting taxation, employment law and company policy hopelessly confused. 😁

Yes, but.

Cougar - does the fact that the legislation, the government guidance, and the employment lawyer's commentary all see the position differently to you give you any pause? Do you think there might be a reason why they all referred to it as as a "right to request flexible working" and not "a right to flexible working"?

🤔

Sounds like a handy way to get rid of staff without paying redundancy to me.

They are definitely "shaking the tree" at my place. Redundancies have already been announced.

HR Homeworker here

Workplaces - It’s possible for an employee to have 2 or more permanent workplaces. What is important for the HMRC is a pattern. So if you work at home Mon+Fri and the Office Thu-Thu BOTH can be considered your permanent workplace and you should not claim anything for the commute (you are not entitled to tax relief for the costs incurred in travelling from home to any of your permanent workplaces).

I am contractually based at home and do not regularly go to any office so I can claim the travel as a business expense.

Regarding flexible working requests most companies have a process/workflow set up for these and in my experience the manager is asked do you want to let them or not. If the answer is no a rejection is written based on quality, performance or availability for customers.

I feel for you OP.

Ignore the guff about your "legal right to flexible working", as Adam said on page 1 it's merely a right to ask for it. And your employer can easily say no.

Focus on talking to your line manager and any other senior stakeholders who value your contribution. Set out the situation calmly and explain that you feel like you should be searching for a new job unless they can do something.

If they want to keep you, they may have the discretion to make your role home based and sidestep the whole issue.

@chakaping +1

This is the sort of reason why it's not a great idea to burn bridges when you leave a job, if you can reasonably avoid it.

The OP can argue their case however they like, but ultimately their choice may come down to doing what they are told or walking out the door. They've not been there long enough to have any real rights in this situation AIUI.

There's always a risk when taking a new job, that it might not turn out like you hoped. But there's also a risk in staying put, as employers may change anyway!

I also work for a huge American corporation - also run by w*nkers - this includes the leadership at National level in the UK.

After the Pandemic we had to apply for hybrid working - it was agreed on a case-by-case basis by your line manager as long as you met certain criteria (good score on annual review, etc) everyone in my local office who asked got it approved.

About a month ago the Director who manages our department decided that due to someone getting caught skiving he'd unilaterally scrap the hybrid working and wanted everyone back in the office full time.

I emailed my manager (who i get on with great) and politely suggested that if he didn't sort this I would via a resignation letter.
I'm still working from home 3 days a week.
Thankfully after 16 years in the job i'm in the position where there are loads of vacancies everywhere for mid-level Project Managers in Manufacturing/Engineering/Defence, which means they need me more than i need them.... and they know it.

Our co is world wide, and so is our team - we have one guy in Malaysia, one in Sweden, several in the UK, and one in Vancouver, so when they said "you all need to be in the office" we said "well, we've worked REALLY well remotely for the pst two years, in fact if anything we're FAR more productive now. Plus, what about those guys". I do go in when being in the office is necessary, or even just because I fancy it, and some of the guys go in a couple of days each week, but mostly we've just carried on as before.

"Come into the office" smacks of bad management to me - they can't quite work out why things aren't meeting the optimistic targets and think that keeping an eye on folks will help

due to someone getting caught skiving

See - bad management,

I heard that in US companies in particular, and tech jobs especially, a lot of people worked more than one job, side contract etc during the pandemic. Easy enough with careful management and in the US tax system, I think you would get rumbled pretty quickly here.

So making everybody come back to the office was a way to prevent/stop that. This may just be a rumour. I also heard about another large US based bank who made everybody come in three days a week, realised they didn't have enough seats so banned ****ing - you have to work one of the days on a Monday or Friday. Its all ridiculous.

@TiReD

I know of one company who have mandated three days per week on site, monitored, and bonus will be based on attendance! Expect retention issues

I wonder who you might be talking about there..... retention issues are already happening

Cougar – does the fact that the legislation, the government guidance, and the employment lawyer’s commentary all see the position differently to you give you any pause? Do you think there might be a reason why they all referred to it as as a “right to request flexible working” and not “a right to flexible working”?

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, you're arguing over semantics.

I said: You have a right to Flexible Working unless there is a justifiable reason as to why it cannot be granted.

The legislation et al says: You have a right to request Flexible Working which can be rejected if there is a justifiable reason as to why it cannot be granted.

Is there a practical difference between these two statements that I'm missing?

Ignore the guff about your “legal right to flexible working”, as Adam said on page 1 it’s merely a right to ask for it. And your employer can easily say no.

Yes, they can easily say no if they have reason to do so. They cannot just refuse point blank with no further discussion.

Oh I give up. We've had links to gov.uk and legislation, here's one to ACAS. Go read it and interpret it how you will, maybe it is a comprehension failure on my part.

Oh I give up.

come on. dig in. what would TJ do...

...come to think of it - where is TJ? He's normally all over this stuff.

There's a myriad of bullshit excuses employers can use.

Presentism is alive and well

maybe it is a comprehension failure on my part.

No you read it right how they want you to read it.... They want you to think it's for you but really it's just to make you feel like your listened to.

While giving employers a handy framework with which to reject it if they wish

I said: You have a right to Flexible Working unless there is a justifiable reason as to why it cannot be granted.

The legislation et al says: You have a right to request Flexible Working which can be rejected if there is a justifiable reason as to why it cannot be granted.

Is there a practical difference between these two statements that I’m missing?

The key point is that the ‘justifiable reason’ is from the employer’s perspective not the employee’s. The employee simply can’t challenge it unless they’re prepared to go down a resignation/constructive dismissal route. And in the OPs case, because he has an office-based contract, he’d lose.

I feel his pain, we also have office based contracts, and I’ve had to deal with some employees who moved to the other end of the country from their base office during the pandemic. Then they’ve complained that we won’t pay them expenses to travel hundreds of miles to their base office, when they’ve needed to come in. Which we can’t due to tax rules mentioned previously in the thread. However, we have a policy of ‘work where you need to work’ and don’t really care where you are as long as the work gets done, so for the most part, we’ve just changed their base office to the nearest one. Enlightened people, the French. I’d also never work for an American company.