Opinion: Started job but can’t afford to travel to office?

[OspreyO]

The new hire sounds like someone who has little experience of working in a office and/corporate environment.

The whole thing of needing to see someone in the office vs their productivity is corporate culture issue.

 

[labbby]

In the old days everyone went to the pub lunchtime friday and didn't get back to the office until monday morning. None of this lightweight asking HR permission rubbish

I miss poets day

 

[D.P.]

Yup you have to maintain a certain amount of structure and disciple as a business or it becomes an unmanageable mess with people taking advantage.

not at all, you want to make sure people are happy in their job, feel that they are helping to make a difference, that they are respected, that they are trusted. Strapping people to a desk 8-5 doesn't make people productive and doesn't make people not take advantage. Measure outcomes, not irrelevant details about when and where someone delivers those outcomes.

 

[Rroff]

not at all, you want to make sure people are happy in their job, feel that they are helping to make a difference, that they are respected, that they are trusted. Strapping people to a desk 8-5 doesn't make people productive and doesn't make people not take advantage. Measure outcomes, not irrelevant details about when and where someone delivers those outcomes.

Sure you always need to be responsive to employee needs but good luck running a business like that - many businesses need people to be at least working to some kind of common structure to work effectively, it isn't just about outcomes, there are things like people being able to collaborate, timely flow of back and forth communications, briefs and other project management needs.

There are few businesses where people can completely ad hoc it.

I deal with this as part of my job and what you are suggesting just isn't reality for many businesses outside of very specific industries.

The funny thing about being in the office is that whilst team building can improve, getting actual work done is a lot harder, someone brings up a topic to talk about, something happens outside/inside the office, someone brings in food etc, this probably takes up 20-30% of the day?

Frustrating thing is few people seem to have, or even care, any notion of when it is and isn't appropriate - approaching a crunch and time of a factor and next thing you know someone has mentioned football and an hour is mostly lost before people focus again and you've missed an easily achievable deadline causing a massive issue... another time it might not matter at all. And then they wonder why our hours allocation gets cut and we don't have the hours budget to bring an extra person on to lighten the load...

 

[Lopéz]

not at all, you want to make sure people are happy in their job, feel that they are helping to make a difference, that they are respected, that they are trusted. Strapping people to a desk 8-5 doesn't make people productive and doesn't make people not take advantage. Measure outcomes, not irrelevant details about when and where someone delivers those outcomes.

In a world where everyone is a committed, conscientious and productive professional, yeah this works brilliantly.

The sad reality is a large number of employees out there could not give a flying one, and unless someone perches on their shoulder and cracks the virtual whip, would happily sit watching YouTube all day.

Try your approach in a factory, call centre, warehouse etc and see how far it gets you - the answer is, not very far.

The sadder reality is that this is slowly creeping in to be some sort of expected norm in professional roles as well as unskilled jobs - an assumption that a company will pay me a nice nice fat salary and let me do whatever I fancy as I coast along doing the bare minimum in return.

 

[HangTime]

they weren't getting into the office until 11:30am ish. When discussing, the newbie flippantly said "Oh since I'm starting later I'll take my lunch later at 2.30ish" Who would be talking about taking a lunch break if you're getting in that late?

OK now this is a bit odd, the timing of lunch break has very little to do with working hours. In fact you could argue taking lunch later is worse because it means they are more likely to be taking lunch when colleagues are working and/or during US office hours, and hence missing collaboration opportunities which is presumably why they are required in the office in the first place. Talking about a lunch break is fine though, since assuming they are working 6hrs or more, taking a break is mandatory by law IIRC. However I'd assume they would take 30mins max and be finishing late.

Along with being in the office 2/3 days a week, it was made very clear that is a big element of working with the US, particularly as their HOD is in the US.

See this is where there is an interesting juxtaposition; on the one hand it's deemed important to be physically present in London, on the other it's deemed important to be working closely with people in a different continent. Presumably it makes little difference to US colleagues where they are physically sat so arguably they would benefit from more home working on the proviso they would join meetings during the early evening when they'd normally be commuting. The more dispersed (physically & time zones) the network of people you need to engage with for work is, the less benefit there is from being in an office.

 

[Scam]

(snip) Talking about a lunch break is fine though, since assuming they are working 6hrs or more, taking a break is mandatory by law IIRC. However I'd assume they would take 30mins max and be finishing late.

Do people in proper "career ladder" jobs really talk about lunch breaks? I'm not against people taking breaks, heck I take an hour out to go for a swim once a week when I'm in the office.. But I don't find it to be front and centre if you're in a relatively serious, career-ladder role earning good money for London It's a different story if you're in your twenties in a shifted role, or something. I dunno. Perhaps the newbie is a little confused about the culture, but I'm sure it's not one about taking advantage of people so there's no need to be quite so defensive about "I'm working more than 6hrs so I'm taking my legally-obliged 1hr lunch break thanks very much". In the first few weeks of a role, it seems a little like the wrong attitude. If that stuff matters to you, ease into it. And just to be clear, I look at the hours people do at my girlfriend's place and I think it's hilarious. Yes they have some late calls occasionally (those that report into the US for example), but generally they are all out of the door by 5.30pm without fail which really is an easy life as far as I'm concerned!

See this is where there is an interesting juxtaposition; on the one hand it's deemed important to be physically present in London, on the other it's deemed important to be working closely with people in a different continent. Presumably it makes little difference to US colleagues where they are physically sat so arguably they would benefit from more home working on the proviso they would join meetings during the early evening when they'd normally be commuting. The more dispersed (physically & time zones) the network of people you need to engage with for work is, the less benefit there is from being in an office.

I totally agree. My boss is also in the US and he doesn't give a damn where I work from, fortunately for me. But I choose to go into the office 2-3 times a week because my commute is easy and I enjoy spending time with people. Again, in this thread we're talking about a big corporate with tens of thousands of worldwide employees. It's simply not a new junior member of staff's place to try and be going against policy, as daft as it may be to some. Especially in the first few weeks of being there!

 

[Lopéz]

Do people in proper "career ladder" jobs really talk about lunch breaks? I'm not against people taking breaks, heck I take an hour out to go for a swim once a week when I'm in the office.. But I don't find it to be front and centre if you're in a relatively serious, career-ladder role earning good money for London It's a different story if you're in your twenties in a shifted role, or something. I dunno. Perhaps the newbie is a little confused about the culture, but I'm sure it's not one about taking advantage of people so there's no need to be quite so defensive about "I'm working more than 6hrs so I'm taking my legally-obliged 1hr lunch break thanks very much". In the first few weeks of a role, it seems a little like the wrong attitude. If that stuff matters to you, ease into it. And just to be clear, I look at the hours people do at my girlfriend's place and I think it's hilarious. Yes they have some late calls occasionally (those that report into the US for example), but generally they are all out of the door by 5.30pm without fail which really is an easy life as far as I'm concerned!

On this point we disagree - yes absolutely people in "proper" jobs talk about lunch, and if people don't take lunch then something is not right culturally.

Over here the office is *deserted* at 12:00.

 

[tom_e]

A very dim view is taken by our managers if they find we've not been taking our lunch. If you can't find the time to take your legally entitled time at some point in the day then something is wrong with your workload management (baring some major incident occurring that needs dealing with) and you're also going to become of very little use later in the day if you've not had any downtime.

 

[dlockers]

A very dim view is taken by our managers if they find we've not been taking our lunch. If you can't find the time to take your legally entitled time at some point in the day then something is wrong with your workload management (baring some major incident occurring that needs dealing with) and you're also going to become of very little use later in the day if you've not had any downtime.

You are preaching to the guy who believes we should go into the office because London real estate is expensive, and productivity is measured by bum-on-seat time.

And coincidentally wants to buy a mattress as he needs it urgently for a friend staying over, and then return it for a refund.

So recognising that having lunch is beneficial (other than a sandwich at your desk) is quite a few steps from where we are.

 

[Scam]

You are preaching to the guy who believes we should go into the office because London real estate is expensive, and productivity is measured by bum-on-seat time.

I never said any of that. Are you having a conversation in your head again?

So recognising that having lunch is beneficial (other than a sandwich at your desk) is quite a few steps from where we are.

And if you bother reading properly, you'll notice I said I often enjoy a 1hr break to go swimming as my lunch break.

This thread is about a new starter's attitude to company policy. It doesn't matter what any of us think of that policy.

 

[dlockers]

I never said any of that. Are you having a conversation in your head again?

And if you bother reading properly, you'll notice I said I often enjoy a 1hr break to go swimming as my lunch break.

This thread is about a new starter's attitude to company policy. It doesn't matter what any of us think of that policy.

This u?

You have to remember that companies owe you nothing. Yes, clearly hybrid working works, and should be a standard.. But from a company's POV there's issues. Like an empty office on Mon and Tues. If you're in London that will cost £££s.

 

[HangTime]

Perhaps the newbie is a little confused about the culture, but I'm sure it's not one about taking advantage of people so there's no need to be quite so defensive about "I'm working more than 6hrs so I'm taking my legally-obliged 1hr lunch break thanks very much". In the first few weeks of a role, it seems a little like the wrong attitude.

I know in large corporates the culture won't change overnight but I would argue the "wrong attitude" is looking down on someone for discussing lunch break. It doesn't have to be that way. I work at a FTSE100 company and my US-based boss will apologise if they book a meeting during UK lunch hours (which is sometimes necessary due to time zones) and tries to avoid us having meetings after 17:00 UK time.

I don't disagree with the general point about 'keeping your nose clean' / not rocking the boat in the early weeks in a new org, but culturally it's not a good vibe if there's a sort of stigmatism about adhering to lunch breaks and finishing time. It sounds like this individual is looking a gift horse in the mouth to some extent though if they are starting at 11:30.

To be clear, for me this works both ways as I also disagree with cultures where Friday afternoon is seen as a holiday camp where it's all long lunches and doss about a bit before clocking off early. A meeting at 16:30 on Friday is in no way less appropriate than say 11:00 on Monday (unless it will spawn immediate action items).

 

[dlockers]

A meeting at 16:30 on Friday is in no way less appropriate than say 11:00 on Monday (unless it will spawn immediate action items).

BURNNNN HIMMMM

 

[Diagro]

Lol @ this thread.

All the things the person in question is doing, is pretty normal for younger people.
I personally would NEVER get a job where i had to get the train for hours to get to.
If i did, it would be working time and part of my work day. Heck, when i drive to the head office @ my work, its a 2.5hr drive and I do said drive in office hours. Then leave at 3pm.

(when @ my local office, i will get here early, work well past my contracted hours and i dont really have a lunch break... as i tend to work through them anyway)... so swings and roundabouts

Oh btw, WFH is something I strongly advocate against with new hires into my team. All the hardware and technical devices they need to utilise day to day are in the office. Yes, they could be taken home and people have asked to do so, but my response is always no. Come to the office, and do the damn job.

 

[Scam]

This u?

Just because I can see the issue of hybrid working from a company's pov doesn't mean I'm "advocating" working in the office 5 days a week.

I know in large corporates the culture won't change overnight but I would argue the "wrong attitude" is looking down on someone for discussing lunch break. It doesn't have to be that way. I work at a FTSE100 company and my US-based boss will apologise if they book a meeting during UK lunch hours (which is sometimes necessary due to time zones) and tries to avoid us having meetings after 17:00 UK time.

Sounds like you have a nice boss. Working closely with west coast is hard, 5pm is 9am. Fortunately a lot of them start earlier than us (~8am sometimes) but on the flipside it's a bit cheeky putting a meeting in at 8am their time because you don't want to work later than 5/6pm. Swings and roundabouts. I'm sure there's worse timezones to work with! I always make the effort to reply to Australian/Japan emails that evening (or morning? I forget) because (a) the people are all really nice and no bother and (b) if you don't, they'll be waiting for another 24hrs.

But no, the discussing lunch breaks thing isn't a red flag for me generally - everyone needs to understand the hours/culture at a new place. It was the fact that it was immediately following the agreement that they'd be allowed to get into the office at 11:30am, because the trains were cheaper. As part of that conversation I just wouldn't have brought up a lunch break at all.

Anyway, we're going round in circles..

 

[malachi]

To be clear, for me this works both ways as I also disagree with cultures where Friday afternoon is seen as a holiday camp where it's all long lunches and doss about a bit before clocking off early. A meeting at 16:30 on Friday is in no way less appropriate than say 11:00 on Monday (unless it will spawn immediate action items).

At my previous company they had an "No meetings on Friday's" policy unless it was urgent.

 

[Scam]

At my previous company they had an "No meetings on Friday's" policy unless it was urgent.

We have that. As well as "summer hours" which was work I think an extra hour (or 30mins?) every day, then you can finish at 1pm on Friday. But the reality of having a boss in the US and being in a fairly reactive role meant it rarely worked.

 

[TangoEchoAlpha]

I would terminate them and find someone else.

Sarah Connor?

 

[HangTime]

At my previous company they had an "No meetings on Friday's" policy unless it was urgent.

If it's a policy that's a different matter, I'm talking more about unwritten 'rules' that others are frowned upon for not adhering to.
The thing I don't like about having periods where meetings are prohibited is it just makes it even harder to arrange meetings because the window of opportunity is narrowed, and it makes other periods more congested so you have less downtime / admin time between meetings

My personal approach is I do not book meetings outside the expected working hours of attendees without prior agreement and I do not book UK based people between 12:00-14:00 unless there is no alternate slot within the coming days, it is very urgent, or they have their lunch blocked out in calendar so I know it's safe to book alongside that.