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

[MrRockliffe]

Looks like some people forget that you hire people, not jobs.


People go through tough times, especially in the current climate, and they may have felt compelled to hide the fact they can't afford the travel at the beginning, through risk of not getting the job. Should they have done it? Probably not, but they did.



You've got two options:

1. Tell them that rules are rules and they need to deal with it.
2. 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 sure they've got a 3 month probation, so if things don't change you can get rid of them incredibly easy.



I can't see a downside to option 2. If they take the Micky, you can sack them without reason during their probation, but on the flip side, you might build a great amount of trust with them and evidence you're a people-focused business.

 

[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.

 

[dlockers]

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.

Sounds like a miserable company anyway.

Also, it isn't unreasonable to give an allowance if someone genuinely can't fund their travel. Most companies even allow you to expense your travel costs for interviews etc...

 

[MrRockliffe]

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.

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

Time for a new company me thinks!

 

[HangTime]

They've already met you half way and suggested one day a week.

This will sound pedantic (I don't mean it that way) but 1 day out of the 3 mandated isn't even halfway, it's a significant difference to a policy communicated up front that (rightly or wrongly) seems to be strictly policed at this org.

That said, I'd be cutting them some slack this week due to rail strikes, so really we're talking about them being onsite 2 days out of the mandatory 6 in the following two weeks before payday. Not that huge in the grand scheme of things.

In terms of the downsides to option 2, I guess the big concerns are:
a) Whether this could impact their onboarding / relationship building / knowledge transfer - I guess this will become apparent as they approach probation
b) Setting a precedent and fostering resentment amongst her peers (why does the new girl get to save all the money/travel time and I don't?!?!)
c) Potential implications for Scam-gf getting in trouble over it.


Thinking back, Id forgotten that when I first took a job in London, I didn't mention until offer stage that I would need to have 3 days a month where I'd need to either leave early and make up hours, or work from home, in order to get back in time to collect my son from nursery. However, I did ensure this was informally agreed to prior to signing the contract, I didn't leave it until just before I started the job. It was a minor curveball to throw in at a late stage of negotiation, but at least I was thinking ahead unlike this girl.

 

[bazzastan]

This will sound pedantic (I don't mean it that way) but 1 day out of the 3 mandated isn't even halfway, it's a significant difference to a policy communicated up front that (rightly or wrongly) seems to be strictly policed at this org.

That said, I'd be cutting them some slack this week due to rail strikes, so really we're talking about them being onsite 2 days out of the mandatory 6 in the following two weeks before payday. Not that huge in the grand scheme of things.

In terms of the downsides to option 2, I guess the big concerns are:
a) Whether this could impact their onboarding / relationship building / knowledge transfer - I guess this will become apparent as they approach probation
b) Setting a precedent and fostering resentment amongst her peers (why does the new girl get to save all the money/travel time and I don't?!?!)
c) Potential implications for Scam-gf getting in trouble over it.


Thinking back, Id forgotten that when I first took a job in London, I didn't mention until offer stage that I would need to have 3 days a month where I'd need to either leave early and make up hours, or work from home, in order to get back in time to collect my son from nursery. However, I did ensure this was informally agreed to prior to signing the contract, I didn't leave it until just before I started the job. It was a minor curveball to throw in at a late stage of negotiation, but at least I was thinking ahead unlike this girl.

b would be the main worry here for me.

 

[MrRockliffe]

This will sound pedantic (I don't mean it that way) but 1 day out of the 3 mandated isn't even halfway, it's a significant difference to a policy communicated up front that (rightly or wrongly) seems to be strictly policed at this org.

You’re right that is pedantic

But I mean half way in that the individual isn’t saying “I don’t want to travel”


I’ve been in a situation where I’ve joined a company with little to no money, and it’s super stressful.

Setting a precedent and fostering resentment amongst her peers (why does the new girl get to save all the money/travel time and I don't?!?!)

People need to grow up and not act like children.

 

[Fubsy]

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.

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.

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.

 

[HangTime]

People need to grow up and not act like children.

They do, but if you are the manager of the people acting like children, it still makes your job harder having to deal with that. You could argue being a strong leader would be shifting their culture around this, but it might be a case of picking her battles, especially if there is pressure from management around this topic (point c).

 

[MrRockliffe]

They do, but if you are the manager of the people acting like children, it still makes your job harder having to deal with that. You could argue being a strong leader would be shifting their culture around this, but it might be a case of picking her battles, especially if there is pressure from management around this topic (point c).

Going back to my original point though, it would definitely raise some red flags if this is what the culture is like.

 

[ivrytwr3]

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.

No way i would put myself in contravention of policy. But your gf could raise the question up. If they don't get back in time, tough, it's back with the new hire to make it in. Or the top say yay or nay.

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

 

[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.

 

[dlockers]

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.

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

 

[HangTime]

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.

Depends what 'worried about' means, if they are just seeking clarification on how long lunch break is, what start/finish time is that's perfectly fine IMO. It's particularly important for long distance commuters because missing a train by 2mins might mean getting home say 45 minutes later, or they might need to pick up a child from nursery before it closes etc.
Sometimes people think of it as 'clock watching' like you are desperate to leave at 17:00 on the dot to minimise the amount of work done, but often it's just logistics.
Obviously if it's more a case of they are taking extended lunch breaks and don't like being pulled up on it, or clocking in late / off early, then that's more of a problem.

 

[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

 

[dlockers]

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

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?

 

[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.

 

[dlockers]

on-prem servers for example

Those belong in data centers

make themselves hard to get ahold of etc.

This is what needs focus IMO. I have a colleague I am responsible for who is just specifically hiding herself.

 

[willhub]

Give them a company loan for a month ticket and charge them 80% interest

 

[HangTime]

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.

I agree it's really inefficient. Companies haven't properly adapted to hybrid models, part of this will be natural inertia due to having long leases on premises etc. So if you took out a 5 or 10 year lease on an office building in 2019 you're kinda stuck with it. In theory we should be seeing more of a rise in flexible workspaces perhaps with discounted pricing on Mondays and Fridays to 'load-balance' the capacity.

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.

Being hard to get hold of is an interesting one, personally I've traditionally been harder to get hold of in the office because I'll be away from my desk a lot more (travelling between meeting rooms etc) and the fact I need to travel means I'll be more likely to leave a message on read without replying (i.e. if I'm at home then speaking to someone after the end of the working day is less hardship compared to when in the office).