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.
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.
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.
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.
Having just started a wfh role 6 months ago, just double checked my contract…
Yes, they can easily say no if they have reason to do so. They cannot just refuse point blank with no further discussion.
You're giving way too much weight to this point, they can simply say they believe teams/projects/people perform better in an office environment. They do not need to evidence that and there's no easy way to challenge that.
come on. dig in. what would TJ do…
Do I remember right that he used to be a union rep (like myself)?
If so, he'll understand it's easy for employers to refuse WFH via flexible working.
Having just started a wfh role 6 months ago, just double checked my contract…
my workplace is defined as home, but there is clause that if they establish an office within a reasonable commuting distance from my house, that would be considered my new workplace. doesnt define reasonable though.
Ruddy irritating and typical of US companies
Its a breach of contract in that you have a verbal contract to work from home
Its not constructive dismissal and your right to ask for flexible working is meaningless
Not a huge amount you can do.
I haven't read the whole thread so it may well have already been mentioned, but I believe that 'Custom and practice' could come into play here – if they have allowed it for a time they cannot just take the right away no matter what written or verbal agreements are in place.
As the OP working from home (which I've been doing for almost 16 years) is better for my mental health. I'm more productive, fewer interruptions and I love the ability to manage my time to suit. It's a different situation than most on here, as I'm self employed and pay is for work done (piece work).
Stick to your guns OP.
Sounds like they've only just made the announcement, appreciate they've said no exceptions but is there any additional info? Is it possible they've not thought it through properly and have communicated poorly on top of that?
I'd avoid jumping into confrontational behaviour and quoting employment law, right to (request) flexible working, etc. Have a grown up conversation with the right people and take it from there.
If you do go down the righteous indignation and entitlement route, and somehow force them to allow you to keep working from home against their wishes, I would expect them to manage you out.
I have had the conversation at VP level - but he is trumped by CEO. There does seem to be very little wiggle room, although there has been the expected backlash of angry employees. Many of whom have built a life (me included) around the new way of work. There's also no dispensation given if you have children. Not a valid reason for not wanting to do a 6 hour round trip, apparently. You have 2 months to work out childcare. They just don't get it "Well drop your son off and then come to the office". If I leave at 9am, I get to the office at lunchtime. What is the point?
We had to tell a would be new recruit today of the change in policy. It was the draw of remote that prized him from a competitor. He's not joining now. Which is a shame for my team because he's talented. But part of me now wants the company to feel a lot the pain for their decision. They said they're prepared for attrition and also a new policy now not to look far and wide for the best person - just take a local person who is probably suitable.
It was the same for me a few months ago. The promise of remote. I left a local (to me) competitor for a role that would otherwise have not been possible. Too late for me, obviously. But other people also joined from the same competitor that live a mere 5 miles from me are OUT of scope for the return to office. Because we all live on the county border. Me the wrong side of it.
I've already alerted ex colleagues to my position. I left on good terms and with a great review - although recruitment there is slowing up a bit...certainly a freeze on filling certain open positions.
It's just a way to do layoffs without actually having to layoff anyone or pay redundancies. If you're thinking of leaving anyway you should see if you can negotiate a payoff. Even if you go back to the office you can expect them to start taking away benefits and ramping up targets.
