It is if the employer says it is. The employee works for them and not the other way around. If the employer would rather their staff were present in the office, then that’s the way it is.
No. If an employer says they need/want to
get people back into the work place and working collaboratively face to face again
That is an instruction. It may well be a
requirement they set for their staff, but it isn't in and of itself, a
reason.
A reason is what they should respond with, if some of the staff ask "why do we need to work in an office, if we're able to be productive working remotely".
A reason describes why something did or should happen, it doesn't instruct a person to do that thing.
It really isn’t unless you take it personally and decide to apply it to yourself.
You already applied it to anyone who doesn't ascribe to your personal idea of the ideal working environment:
I think it’s good for business to get people back into the work place and working collaboratively face to face again. Sure you may get the odd unsociable person who dislikes people contact but in most environments it’s a team that needs physical presence to break down barriers.
Factory floor staff often complain staff in the offices are paid more than them when all they do is ‘sit down all day’ as they say.
Great, so at the same time you explain to
them that they're doing a different job, with different requirements, in a different working environment, you can explain to the people who aren't able to work remotely, that
they too are doing a different job, with different requirements in a different working environment.
See? How hard was that? And as
many people have claimed in this thread: if they don't like that they specifically are actually required to be in the office for one/some/all of the tasks their job entails, they can go find another job.
It’s funny you should mention hardware as I had to justify recently why my Dell workstation cost £3.5k when many of the production computers only cost £600. That the problem with people not completely understanding what others actually do.
So it sounds like people working remotely ins't really the problem here. Its that your staff are all clueless about what others do, and thus feel like they aren't getting a fair deal.
n my experience companies still operate face to face contact and even modern market leading companies. I think I’d get a rather confused reaction if I said we only ‘do Teams’ lol.
I don't know what "do Teams" means, but if your client relationships are somehow dependent on being able to tour them through an office to gawk at the people
doing the work, that sounds like a pretty ****** deal for those people.
Measuring output and perception are sadly things that go had in hand, especially when it’s Directors making calls without understanding the job requirements.
So, confirmed, a ****** place to work with middle/upper management that have zero clue what their staff actually do, and thus absurd requirements about "bums on seats". You have my condolences, but that's all just a reason not to work for the company you work for, or one like it.
If you remove the pandemic from the equation, employees have even less leverage to justify working from home.
As the apocalypse 'winds down', we're going to see more of this very discussion all over the place.
Employees petitioning their employer for more flexible working arrangements, so that they can live their lives, and not just be drones in a ****ing office.
The employers are going to respond in a number of ways that ultimately boil down to just a couple of things:
Yes, sure, from now on <insert negotiated arrangement>
No, sorry, tasks X, Y and Z are fundamental to your job role and require you to be in the office.
No, just because.
I'm sure a lot will fall into the last category. I'm also sure that those employees will be looking for better opportunities elsewhere, sooner or later.
