This Business and Moment...

Freefaller said:
Just read a frustrating conversation about new starters. The IT and a couple of other managers want to do face to face inductions again now that the office has been refurbished but a handful of the managers are saying "what if they're unwilling or reluctant to come into town"? Stating it's not very inclusive or flexible to have in face inductions... Whilst this has nothing to do with me as my team is full, it seems excessively namby pamby to me. You've signed an employment contract, your manager wants you to go into town for an induction... what's wrong with that? Admittedly this is not for office-based people, but field based people, but still...

I don't mind having more flexibility, but now new employees are telling their employers what they expect / want to do...

Maybe I'm a dinosaur with regards to this, but it seems a little daft to me.
Click to expand...
I'm 100% in support of new working models - whether that's fully remote, hybrid, or flexible. However unless you've signed up for a 100% WFH role, I'd argue your induction and/or first day should be the exact time you do attend in person? Weird.
 
Interesting @Freefaller, we had to have a day last week all about culture and behaviours and this sort of thing came up in group discussion. I put forward that whilst its important to be flexible and inclusive in order to attract and retain workforce, it should never be at the detriment to the job we do. There is no obvious answer and I'm unsure if the private sector is going to the same lengths as I have experienced where I work.
I noticed in some job adverts now they are saying you must be prepared to come in 1 day a week to the office, so they don't get people in and then 'shock' them by asking them to actually attend site.
I believe flexible working arrangements are on a par now with salary for jobseekers, I know I would be unlikely to join somewhere that insisted on say 3+ days on site. Then again it depends, for example, I really want to work with Space Command at some point, if they said we need you on the base 5 days a week then I would, but if I wouldn't take this for just anything.
 
LuckyBenski said:
I'm 100% in support of new working models - whether that's fully remote, hybrid, or flexible. However unless you've signed up for a 100% WFH role, I'd argue your induction and/or first day should be the exact time you do attend in person? Weird.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People forget that going into an office is a normal thing to do.

Noxia said:
Interesting @Freefaller, we had to have a day last week all about culture and behaviours and this sort of thing came up in group discussion. I put forward that whilst its important to be flexible and inclusive in order to attract and retain workforce, it should never be at the detriment to the job we do. There is no obvious answer and I'm unsure if the private sector is going to the same lengths as I have experienced where I work.
I noticed in some job adverts now they are saying you must be prepared to come in 1 day a week to the office, so they don't get people in and then 'shock' them by asking them to actually attend site.
I believe flexible working arrangements are on a par now with salary for jobseekers, I know I would be unlikely to join somewhere that insisted on say 3+ days on site. Then again it depends, for example, I really want to work with Space Command at some point, if they said we need you on the base 5 days a week then I would, but if I wouldn't take this for just anything.
Click to expand...

I'm all in favour of flexible working, it's been wonderful to spend more time with the family, but also it's been important to meet with clients, colleagues and peers to do other bits of work which you cannot do online all the time.

Also it's a habit that's hard to break, for most people that in their 40s or older, most of us have been going into an office for 20 or so years... so there is some adaptability that needs to happen - but that adaptability goes both ways.

I just found the comment from some of my colleagues a little bit too namby pamby... I mean even if you're 100% work from home contract, 1 day in the office (which you'd get your expenses paid for anyway) is really not a big ask...
 
Kreeeee said:
I refuse to work for free so I make sure that either I’m paid by the hour or that my salary gives an acceptable hourly rate when factoring in my real hours.

At the moment I work in reality 80% for a 60% contract but I get paid overtime. The only negative is my bonus and qualification premiums are prorated at 60%.
Click to expand...

I agree with your attitude 100%... I haven't been paid TOIL or overtime since I was a field engineer (and I mean an actual engineer) and travelling extensively globally. Since going to the corporate world, 9-5 seems to be a contract, but the reality is very different at least in my experience.

I think people should be measured on productivity rather than hours in the office... but that'll take time to change this work-first behaviour that seems endemic in this country (and certainly in the US).
 
Noxia said:
I believe flexible working arrangements are on a par now with salary for jobseekers, I know I would be unlikely to join somewhere that insisted on say 3+ days on site. Then again it depends, for example, I really want to work with Space Command at some point, if they said we need you on the base 5 days a week then I would, but if I wouldn't take this for just anything.
Click to expand...

Yep this seems to be the case. In my industry virtually all jobs are now advertised either fully remote or 1-2 days a week on site. Salary for these jobs are significantly higher than for the same job fully on site pre-pandemic, but that's probably just because of a lack of skilled workers. Those few companies that want people in the office full time (or 3/4 days a week) are even higher salaries. It's an interesting trade off, personally I want to be fully remote or 1 day a week in the office but would consider more time on site for the right package - But it would need to be really exceptional.

Edit: Even for a remote or almost fully remote job though I would expect to spend some time in the office in my first week/month!
 
Last edited:
Kreeeee said:
How do you measure productivity if you’re not making widgets? I agree in principle that output is more important than hours, but how can you measure that in service industries?
Click to expand...

It depends on the industry - I agree it's tough.

It's a blend on how do we let people manage their time without micromanaging, but that clients get what they need, or that the business is making money? I suppose each sector will have its way of measuring it.

From my perspective in the infrastructure (civil engineering) sector, assets are built, against a schedule, budget, carbon etc... so it is easy enough.

I don't really have an answer!
 
malachi said:
you never improve if you don't step out your comfort zone into the unknown
Click to expand...
I would temper this slightly; whilst stepping outside comfort zone has certainly helped me to develop in the past, I've also developed without doing so. So I think you can improve faster, or into different areas by stepping outside comfort zone, but you can still improve without doing so.
 
Freefaller said:
I agree with your attitude 100%... I haven't been paid TOIL or overtime since I was a field engineer (and I mean an actual engineer) and travelling extensively globally. Since going to the corporate world, 9-5 seems to be a contract, but the reality is very different at least in my experience.

I think people should be measured on productivity rather than hours in the office... but that'll take time to change this work-first behaviour that seems endemic in this country (and certainly in the US).
Click to expand...

That is typically the way - usually covered by some contractual clause that means you're contractually obliged to perform as many hours to complete your work to a satisfactory standard. Which in reality is never ending and always increasing. Its presence highlights issues with organisational performance vs valuing the employee.
 
NickK said:
That is typically the way - usually covered by some contractual clause that means you're contractually obliged to perform as many hours to complete your work to a satisfactory standard. Which in reality is never ending and always increasing. Its presence highlights issues with organisational performance vs valuing the employee.
Click to expand...

Agreed most contracts ask you to "opt out the 48hr week". I don't really mind as I accept that the more senior you become the more responsibility / accountability you have - but there has to be a point where UK businesses get teh work/life balance better, and that's not only working from home, it's genuine "you're punching above your weight, have some extra time off..." type of conversations/ability.
 
Freefaller said:
Agreed most contracts ask you to "opt out the 48hr week". I don't really mind as I accept that the more senior you become the more responsibility / accountability you have - but there has to be a point where UK businesses get teh work/life balance better, and that's not only working from home, it's genuine "you're punching above your weight, have some extra time off..." type of conversations/ability.
Click to expand...

For execs that's the case. However an senior/exec will think nothing of putting together the numbers to support creating delegated role whereas the poor middle manager with a dysfunctional hierarchy further up ends up working all hours.
 
NickK said:
For execs that's the case. However an senior/exec will think nothing of putting together the numbers to support creating delegated role whereas the poor middle manager with a dysfunctional hierarchy further up ends up working all hours.
Click to expand...

Ah yes the middle squeeze.. I think we've all been there :(

What's the answer? More staff with more explicit roles / responsibilities? Or job sharing? something's broken though at that middle/senior layer.
 
Freefaller said:
Ah yes the middle squeeze.. I think we've all been there :(

What's the answer? More staff with more explicit roles / responsibilities? Or job sharing? something's broken though at that middle/senior layer.
Click to expand...

Too many variables to point at one thing, hence 'organisational performance'. For the individual moving is the best option. For the organisation it needs a culture of internal empathy to detect and resolve rather than the protective political ivory towers.
 
Agreed - that's why I've moved roles... but surely long term that's not a sensible strategy?

Organisational performance I think is wise, but at the same time I've noticed this that some business units outperform others, and "carry" the business, but there are so many factors, i.e. their business unit is lower %margin just by its nature, or there has been a catastrophic issue with supply chain or even client issues etc... that said sometimes it's just down to **** poor management.

It's a fascinating dynamic though - makes it quite interesting, love speaking to my business psychologists as they have some really interesting stories.
 
Freefaller said:
Just read a frustrating conversation about new starters. The IT and a couple of other managers want to do face to face inductions again now that the office has been refurbished but a handful of the managers are saying "what if they're unwilling or reluctant to come into town"? Stating it's not very inclusive or flexible to have in face inductions... Whilst this has nothing to do with me as my team is full, it seems excessively namby pamby to me. You've signed an employment contract, your manager wants you to go into town for an induction... what's wrong with that? Admittedly this is not for office-based people, but field based people, but still...

I don't mind having more flexibility, but now new employees are telling their employers what they expect / want to do...

Maybe I'm a dinosaur with regards to this, but it seems a little daft to me.
Click to expand...

We refused any flexibility for most new hires in IT over the last 5 years. Only about 33% have stayed.

Whats weird is we already had (before lockdown) some remote workers and wfh. We just won't let some people do it. No real logic to it.

My own line Manager was trying to sell the idea of getting back to in person meetings. Which is ironic because they never had formal meetings with their team prior to WFH. They seem to have no recollection of that.
 
Flexibility is different to point blank refusing to come into the office even if it's just for an extraordinary meeting or induction though.

Whilst it's good that employees have a bit more power now there's a bit of **** taking too imo.
 
If you asked them your implying choice. Don't give a choice. Refer them to their contract terms which covers all this.

We've all been asked back into the office essentially to meet each other. I assume our director was ordered to do this. As he normally he distances himself from the majority of the team. So I find it all slightly ironic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom