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

[Scam]

Not me! Interested in other opinions on this though.

My girlfriend has recruited someone in London who lives on the south coast. Big corporate office, known brand, with massive global footprint type of thing. The place of work dictates three days a week in the office.

The new employee knew this and was considering moving to London anyway. But after the first week, they’ve now turned round and said they can’t afford the train fare until they get paid in 3 weeks. (They’ve been out of work for a while). So they want to just come in one day a week until then.

As the manager, what would you do? My girlfriend obviously isn’t impressed so far.. It’s incredibly hard to train someone new remotely and there’s lots of things that you need to be in the office (getting computer setup etc, software etc) especially at a big corporate. Even tomorrow, first day of working remotely is going to be tricky - let alone all of next week because of the train strikes.

Beyond asking HR for some kind of advance, is the only option to be completely heartless here? My girlfriend *could* allow it under the radar, but it sets a dangerous precedent (other people that live afar have not been allowed to come in less). And we were half joking that if she did - this new employee could disappear after only doing like 5 days in the office before payday lol

Thoughts?

 

[Scam]

Can't they use overdraft or credit card or something like that, seeing as it's only a short term problem that seems ok.

Yeah I thought this.

Frankly where I work a lot would depend on the impression of the person - though not everyone has good judgement :s.

Yeah. I’m not sure she’s getting a great vibe from her at the moment - but we’re not sure she ever had a proper job before Covid so it might be young persons mentality about working remotely - rather than a completely bad attitude. But my girlfriend was 100% clear on having to be in the office.

 

[Scam]

Thanks guys. Good points. She's on a call with her now (and I'm gasping for a coffee )

If they really are that short on cash I am pretty sure the jobcenter has a system to help people into the first weeks of work in such a situation (eg they will pay for the rail costs etc).

But did GF have a say in the hiring process? There must have been something that clicked to offer the person the job.

Good point re. the job centre. And yes my other half was obviously involved in the process (as much as her stupid HR numpties were trying to take over!)

Could easily be a case of real financial hardship, especially when they've been out of work for a while. What percentage of their income are those train tickets going to be costing ? The offer of one day a week for the rest of the first month does seem like an attempt to mitigate the problem. Your other half would likely get a better picture once the new employee has had a salary paid in.

We're talking about someone in their mid-twenties starting a job paying £40k+. I'd imagine the train tickets are £50 odd per day or something. This isn't a £25k graduate job. She has relevant experience.

My personal opinion is that the company should “float” them some cash to cover the train fare for the first month.

What's the issue here? Just pay their ticket? Hardly going to break the bank and it smooths things over..

Easier said than done in a big corporate. My girlfriend has a corporate card, but doesn't think she could do that very easily (this would have been my choice but my expenses are a bit more free and easy).

Yes just expense the train tickets, which will either build trust or call their bluff.

Indeed. If HR were ever actually useful for once -- they would pro rata her pay and give her an advance. That would easily cover the train tickets.

If someone (a new starter) has said they can't physically afford the commute for the first month until they get paid, it might be more a reality for them, than a behaviour.

It might be a reality, but the three days a week in the office annoys my girlfriend too and it was made absolutely clear throughout the hiring process. Why wait until the end of the first week to bring it up?

But really, someone doesn't have enough money to go to work? That person must be close to falling through the cracks entirely.

Yes and this is what doesn't make sense. My girlfriend is sure she mentioned having savings at some point which puts a massive spin on the argument...

Furthermore, apparently (from how I read it) once they've been paid the person said they'd be able to do the 3x days a week onwards.

So long as that happens - then I don't see a reason to throw them in the bin, show a little compromise.

True, true. But as @sidimmu just said, this could be showing of a bad attitude, or maybe just inexperience in the workplace. If I started a new job I would be falling over myself to set a good impression. Yes money problems are different but there must be some way around it beyond starting your first week trying to go against company policy

 

[Scam]

From the employees perspective, these are all still infinitely preferable to saying at interview that you won't be able to make it into work and not getting a job at all.

Either way, from her perspective, she's better off than not having a job this month.

True, true. But stuff like this is what made my other half wary of taking on someone who lives far away in the first place! Not so much this dramatic, but she doesn't want someone that needs a 'conversation' about getting to the office on time, or three days a week, or wants an exception because of 'the trains'. To add perspective, said new employee had also asked my other half about a relocation package. In hindsight perhaps that was her way of raising the issue, but the way she raised it, it seemed more at the time that she was just after more money or something (dunno).

its really got absolutely nothing to do with them and should not be there problem.

Yep. Giving your new employer problems in the first week is not good. My girlfriend's role changed a while ago, she took on loads of responsibility and is absolutely snowed under with doing her day-to-day, together with creating new big-picture processes that she's now in charge of. She was desperate for the headcount and finally got it.. unfortunately it's quite a niche role so finding people will the right experience (or aptitude) is difficult. In short, she just wants to get on with the job in hand, not problem solving for a new starter with what appears to be a bad attitude.

Update (my girlfriend will be annoyed I'm giving these details but hey), they've come to a compromise in that new employee has pre-booked train tickets for the week after next.. but later so she doesn't get in until midday. She's still leaving normal time though

I'm not getting a good vibe from this at all, apparently she thought it appropriate to mention what time she could take lunch. NB: worth mentioning there is an existing compromise for some employees that live further afield to work on the train as part of their hours so it's not unheard of.

I don't think I ever want to manage anyone

 

[Scam]

I can also tell you as a manager and tech lead for a large company, that you're always going to struggle to fire an employee, who has told you they have money problems and can't afford their commute for the first month - without having any sort of discussion or trying to solve the problem or strike a compromise.

Really? This employee (and the other new starter) are on a long probation period (4-5 months I believe) so at least there's plenty of time to get over this hump and see how they perform once salary has been paid etc.

I can't see how a tribunal would ever side with an employee that is not turning up to the office as per the contract they have signed, especially when on probation

 

[Scam]

Most top-tier employers will offer season ticket loan facilities, which I am not sure can be squeezed to a single month, but it shouldn't be a bizarre ask.

No, you're right. I just have zero faith in HR being able to sort out anything like that quickly. Our company used to have the season ticket loan but it was arranged only for a yearly ticket. You couldn't do it monthly. It's no longer available since COVID -- I'd imagine it'd not worthwhile companies doing that anymore even if they are expecting people to be in the office 2-3 days a week.

Give them some breathing space and give them the green light to reduce the office travel to start with. They've already met you half way and suggested one day a week. What real impact does it have on your gf?

I'm over-dramatising on purpose of course, but the real impact could be disciplinary action against my girlfriend for contravening company policy that has been quite well policed since introduced. They are actually checking badge scans etc. on the front door because people have been pulled up on it. (I find it ridiculous, but hey). To get a waiver against said policy (sorry can't think of the right words), would mean going a level or two over her boss to her wider head of department (SVP) who reports directly to the CEO or COO or at least someone in a C-suite role I believe. Would you want to cause such a bother for a new employee on one of the lowest rungs in the organisation? It's a top-down directive which the company is taking very seriously - for whatever reason.

 

[Scam]

(Thought I'd posted this reply yesterday but clearly got distracted)

Just a bit mad that that threat, whether real or otherwise, is looming over her head.

There's no actual threat. The company's culture is fine, if a little over-corporate for my liking. I was being over-dramatic for effect. Bigger companies have policy that is there to be followed. I was merely articulating what it would take to "make an exemption" in this case, because a lot of people seemed to be under the impression my girlfriend could simply have a quiet word with her immediate superior and everything will be fine. It's just not the way the place works.. put that down to being a big corporate. As for checking up on people's badge-scanning at the front door, I thought that was ridiculous myself but clearly the company has had problems with taking the **** with WFH. My place is more easygoing in that respect and I'm positive there's people in my department that have "quiet quit" i.e. are literally never in the office... you struggle to get replies from, are barely in meetings etc. I'm sure it's a real problem for some bigger companies with lots of layers to hide in.

In that case, if this were me, I'd leave this job and find another sharpish. Companies with the this type of leadership can just eff right off in 2023.

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.

Either way, not your gf problem and she's done what she can to help.

This is the point that we're forgetting. This new employee has not exactly adorned their-self in glory for the first week. They've created a problem, put pressure on my girlfriend that is unnecessary.. None of this is good when you're starting a new role.

EDIT: I won't add details, but there's definitely more examples now of this new employee being particularly worried about lunch breaks, start/finish time etc. None of which you'd expect somebody to raise in their first 1-2 weeks.

 

[Scam]

I hope you aren't in a leadership position within your job if this is how you think

I'm not fortunately But why? It seems short-sighted by an employee if they can't see why the heads of the company would be frustrated by paying rent for 7 days a week and only using the building 2-3 days a week

 

[Scam]

Why do I have to make heads feel good about the fact they've got the wrong real estate for what the business needs; to the extent that they have to MANDATE people to come into the office?

This is opening a can of worms for sure.. Because it's more of a grey area than that. In my opinion (and probably most), some level of coming into the office and interacting with your colleagues is the best amount. Call it 50%, call it 20%.. whatever. But you need somewhere for those employees to come in and collaborate. But, obviously if you work at a place that needs it's office etc. to be secured (on-prem servers for example, other hardware, paperwork, I dunno) then you can't for example do anything else with that space, e.g. share that with another company. So you're stuck. It's a shame to see all this prime London real estate barely in use Monday and Fridays (and the weekends I guess). But it is what it is.

As for mandating it. Well I blame people that just take the mick. Like those people in my place of work that come in maybe twice a month, make themselves hard to get ahold of etc.

 

[Scam]

A big corporate can’t afford a few train tickets even if said new employe "did a runner" !

Why then heck should they? There’s plenty of people looking for jobs, who needs this aggro or charity case?

I suspect this employee will continue to be a challenge on this matter. Solving the problem is easy, but I would look for an employee who solved it first frankly.

I suspect the same. But I’m not sure my other half likes me pointing this out any time the new starter comes up in post work conversation/rants.

indeed, the first question is, is there any reason the role is not WFH.

That’s not the question at all.

I think we need an update from @Scam

Some of us will be right, some of us will be wrong. I'll have no shame in admitting I was wrong about this individual if they been perfect ever since.

Not much more to add, I think my girlfriend is just seeing how it goes what with the probation being so long.

The is still insistent on not staying late/wriggling around staying for later meetings (eg call finishes at 5.30pm therefor newbie wants that to be a WFH day ). I mean c’mon 5.30pm is not even late by anyone’s standards, let alone a London office, let alone a London office that works closely with west coast US!

The one I couldnt believe was that apparently the newbie has very serious hayfever. So brought up in conversation about going to a particular country in Europe for the summer to work remotely!?! Newbie has been there before and hayfever was non-existent. The company has a policy of allowing you to work remotely for up to 4 weeks (no longer for tax reasons) which is very agreeable - however newbie didn’t want this to count towards that - and wanted it to count as an additional “accommodation” as-in like a disability. Newbie unbeknownst to my girlfriend actually reached out to HR about this My girlfriend thinks newbies partner is from said country and hence has family there..

So yeah, my mind was blown with that. Absolutely nuts behaviour in my opinion. I’ve told my other half as much but I think she’s just biding her time. Perhaps throwing in a few late meetings to get the newbie to cause a fuss on record etc. She’s obviously taking heavy notes on all of this.

On the other side of the coin, her other newbie has been taking calls with the US into the evening eg 9pm yesterday and obviously doing really generally.

Edit: Also apparently newbie also talking (asking?) about how it works to move/work from other global offices. Not really understanding the concept of how these things work for said big corporate and you can’t just move your own role…

 

[Scam]

Yeah indeed. But I can only give my advice so many times. Not helpful that I've never managed anyone too I'm sure my girlfriend has it under control, she has successfully engineered other people in her team to leave before when it was clear they didn't fit!

The newbie is really acting like I (we) probably did in our first job out of Uni. Something in a shift pattern, minimum wage etc. Where you know everyone is out to take advantage of you (well, at least in my industry). Not in a £45k+ (I don't know) tier job in a big corporate for those interested in an actual career. Bizarre behaviour.

 

[Scam]

For the time of calls, it may simply be that 5:30 is difficult because it coincides with things like kids daycare finishing and needing to get home and cook dinner for the family. They may be perfectly happy to have a later call. In our team we often try to avoid calls between 4 and 7pm but happily have calls 8-9pm once the kids are fed/in bed. Likewise in the morning, usually no calls at 9am but sometimes some at 7am before school drop off

That's fair enough but the newbie doesn't have kids and just seems more concerned about what time they will get home. And again, this is all that should have been brought up at the interview stage. 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.

 

[Scam]

@dlockers it's less that they're refusing to do it, because the newbie hasn't specifically been asked to do any meetings that are "out of hours". It's more the comments like "oh we have that meeting that doesn't finish until 5.30pm so I'll make that my WFH day so I'm not late" or another which I can't remember if I said.. When the newbie was coming in on the cheaper trains (before getting paid), 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?

It's just odd behaviour.

 

[Scam]

They do sound like a chancer but you still get a lunch break if you start late (assuming they are doing a full day and finishing late).

They weren’t finishing late, I think the agreement was to do a bit of work at home/on the train to make up for not getting in first thing. I just think it’s odd. Like I say, this isn’t some first job out of Uni. This is a FTSE/Nasdaq sized (I can’t remember) household name company doing an office job where it’s entirely possibly to eat a sandwich whilst doing emails or reading documentation. I just wouldn’t dare of bringing it up if I’d already stretched policy and got an ‘out’ to get into the office 2hrs later than everyone else.

 

[Scam]

Honestly your criticism of this individual is a bit weird. Not once has your criticism focused on her work, task at hand, whether she can do the job. Maybe she is just more productive than you? Able to complete her job within working hours? Without sitting in expensive real estate? Without eating at her desk (vile habit)?

I think you need to go back and read the OP.

 

[Scam]

Am I going mad, or is everyone drunk because it’s Friday evening? This is not my employee, I don’t work with them. It’s about a new starter with a bad attitude. Someone who by all accounts has accepted a job under very clear requirements - of which they have spent most of their time in the first few weeks wriggling out of

The size if the company is pretty irrelevant.

It is if you’re talking about changing policy which is what this new employee has suggested on multiple occasions, such as days in the office, start time, end time, long-term remote work allowance, moving to a different global office.

Honestly this forum sometime is bizarre

 

[Scam]

Never seen such a wannabe boomer. Please tell me you are over 50

I wish I was. I’d be rich and have no mortgage, right

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?

True. But I’m a fan of working in the office. It’s quicker to go and find people to ask quick questions, get answers, get on with your day. Actually collaborate. Rather than having to find a slot in someone’s full calendar to book a slot in two days time, or pester them on Teams. If y’all want to be worker drones that don’t actually speak to anyone all day then fine, I find that incredibly boring!

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

Ok boomer

 

[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!

 

[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.

 

[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..