20% pay cut for working from home. Would you take it?

[Mottie]

Seems there's talk about pay cuts for office workers working from home. Had to happen. City firms have realised they don't need to pay top money to attract employee (because those workers have to pay a premium to either live in/near the city and/or commute in).

Would you take a 20% cut to stay at home in your jim-jams or would you go in?

 

[Ihavenojob]

They will most likely be saving on travel (money and stress) eating at home would be cheaper, unless they took a packed lunch. Maybe if they were on London weighting they should just remove that instead of a pay cut, or are they suggesting this and the press are just sensationalising it (as if the press would do such a thing). You may have to fork out a bit more on power, but I think you can claim tax back. Workers would also be "at work" even if they have the sniffles, so no sneaky sickies. If I loved the job and had to travel daily to work (neighbour was doing 3 hours a day commute) then I would take a cut.

 

[gas112]

increased gas and electric charges so people would have to balance costs up

 

[diy_fun_uk]

It's a disgusting proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong, most employment contracts are based on what the job entails and working hours. I don't recall any contracts of mine mentioning along the lines of 'x% of your annual salary is provided due to the fact you are commuting to and from your place of work.' It's up to the employee (usually at their own expense?) to get to work in time and get themselves home thereafter.

So why is it right to subtract x% of a salary just because an employee, who might be more productive when working from home, is no longer doing the daily commute?

Depending on their estates and facilities, some companies can save a small fortune by no longer maintaining or leasing office space?

It's called progress ...

 

[JP_]

No, I would not, especially as management already said that the team I am part of has been more productive since working from home.

 

[JohnD]

it's quite cheering that after more than ten years of stagnating wages not keeping pace with inflation, and employers who despise workers so much that they offer zero-hours and mechanical monitoring of toilet breaks, we now have a shortage of willing and committed employees.

People don't have to work for a company, or a manager, that treats them like dirt.

just imagine if you headed an organisation that was short of 50,000 workers. Because of the treatment that you and your predecessors meted out.

and your buddies cheered it.

 

[Mottie]

just imagine if you

...kept on topic instead of crowbarring your hatred of Boris and the Conservatives into the thread yet again.

 

[Lower]

It's a disgusting proposal. Correct me if I'm wrong, most employment contracts are based on what the job entails and working hours. I don't recall any contracts of mine mentioning along the lines of 'x% of your annual salary is provided due to the fact you are commuting to and from your place of work.' It's up to the employee (usually at their own expense?) to get to work in time and get themselves home thereafter.

So why is it right to subtract x% of a salary just because an employee, who might be more productive when working from home, is no longer doing the daily commute?

Depending on their estates and facilities, some companies can save a small fortune by no longer maintaining or leasing office space?

It's called progress ...

Contractually, their normal place of work will be the office. The employer is simply saying that if you come back to the office, ie do the job you accepted when you accepted the offer of employment, you continue to earn the same. However, if you want to work from home you can, but they're not prepared to pay the same for a home worker role. They are also saying that if you do chose the work from home option, they will then pay travel expenses when you do come into the office.

I don't think that's unfair at all. I think businesses are starting to realise that working from home is much less productive than they initially thought it would be.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Contractually, their normal place of work will be the office. The employer is simply saying that if you come back to the office, ie do the job you accepted when you accepted the offer of employment, you continue to earn the same. However, if you want to work from home you can, but they're not prepared to pay the same for a home worker role. They are also saying that if you do chose the work from home option, they will then pay travel expenses when you do come into the office.

I don't think that's unfair at all. I think businesses are starting to realise that working from home is much less productive than they initially thought it would be.

I think it depends on the business and the individuals. For years I had to endure, yes endure, working in an office with 'talkative' co-workers, one of them in no need of a microphone let's say. It would cause me levels of stress, reduce my productivity etc. And of course, some people depending on their role have no choice but to travel to/from a workplace, luck of the draw to an extent.

Now, of course you can say 'that's something the manager should address' (noisy offices) and to an extent that's true. However it's not always as straightforward as that, office politics etc.

So, in my case and many of my peers, we've seen productivity go up and our stress levels reduced. I know for sure my mental health has improved.

But oh no, the WFH contingent are all that's bad in the eyes of backward thinking managers and leaders. Let's not be forward thinking around productivity as a whole.

 

[Stivino]

What if you live in the same street or within minutes of the workplace, how would that affect travel allowance?

 

[Lower]

I think it depends on the business and the individuals. For years I had to endure, yes endure, working in an office with 'talkative' co-workers, one of them in no need of a microphone let's say. It would cause me levels of stress, reduce my productivity etc. And of course, some people depending on their role have no choice but to travel to/from a workplace, luck of the draw to an extent.

Now, of course you can say 'that's something the manager should address' (noisy offices) and to an extent that's true. However it's not always as straightforward as that, office politics etc.

So, in my case and many of my peers, we've seen productivity go up and our stress levels reduced. I know for sure my mental health has improved.

But oh no, the WFH contingent are all that's bad in the eyes of backward thinking managers and leaders. Let's not be forward thinking around productivity as a whole.

You've obviously had a bad experience with your colleagues.

Have you heard anyone comment, anecdotally, on how they've received much better service from a company since working from home was introduced?

I agree that some businesses can work as efficiently, but many can't. Managing staff is also a much harder task if those staff aren't visible and it's an opportunity for many people to take advantage of the lower levels of scrutiny.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

You've obviously had a bad experience with your colleagues.

Have you heard anyone comment, anecdotally, on how they've received much better service from a company since working from home was introduced?

I agree that some businesses can work as efficiently, but many can't. Managing staff is also a much harder task if those staff aren't visible and it's an opportunity for many people to take advantage of the lower levels of scrutiny.

What I'm noticing, and it's perhaps unfair to use a broad brush, is many small business aren't inclined to promote WFH, whereas more (not all) medium to large businesses are. A mate of mine has recently accepted employment from a medium sized company where they now operate a WFH model, going into the office one day every third week. The place he left didn't operate WFH and when they said 'can we do anything to retain you?' he mentioned the WFH and it was a non-starter. I know categorically my mate is a hard conscientious worker who will maintain that ethos when WFH. The place he's left has lost a hard to replace employee due to not being as forward thinking. Although tbh it wasn't just the WFH aspect.

Some people equate 'productivity' to being 'in the office.' The link can be tenuous at best, again depending on the sector and of course the individuals.

Good managers should be able to monitor productivity whether staff are WFH or not.

Let me give you a scenario. Let's say two employees doing the same job are responsible for producing x widgets per working week. Employee A goes into the office Mon-Fri 9-5, never leaves their desk. They produce 10 widgets on average per week. Employee B works from home, Mon-Fri 9-5. However each day, in addition to scheduled breaks, they take a 10 min walk around their garden in the morning and are away from their WFH desk mid afternoon for 20 mins to go and collect the kids off the school bus. They then take another 10 min walk around the garden before 'clocking off.' They produce 12 widgets on average per week.

 

[The Samaritan]

Rather than a cut, pay the people extra for saving the employer money.

When I worked from home, completed my assessments, case write-ups etc etc, I had the tv on or at least the radio and did the work in about 20% of the time on avg as there was no one really to caht with, lol.

At times when I'd completed a brand new assessment or a contentions assessment, I'd write up the notes at home in my own time quite quickly as events were fresh in my mind then cut and past them the next day over a several hour perios and often did naff all and even popped out for a bite to eat.
My manager/s were very good as long as we did not make it blatant re what we did during so-called working hours and had an x case turnover they were happy.

Thanks

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Rather than a cut, pay the people extra for saving the employer money.

When I worked from home, completed my assessments, case write-ups etc etc, I had the tv on or at least the radio and did the work in about 20% of the time on avg as there was no one really to caht with, lol.

At times when I'd completed a brand new assessment or a contentions assessment, I'd write up the notes at home in my own time quite quickly as events were fresh in my mind then cut and past them the next day over a several hour perios and often did naff all and even popped out for a bite to eat.
My manager/s were very good as long as we did not make it blatant re what we did during so-called working hours and had an x case turnover they were happy.

Thanks

I think it's a transitional thing. Some places were starting to offer more flexible working arrangements pre covid, however management/leadership minds across many sectors had to instantly focus on new ways to deliver services when covid hit. Some businesses now realise there's no need to go back to full time in the office. Some don't.

I get that as a consequence some businesses will suffer e.g. the sandwich bar that relied on trade from office workers. And on a grander scale less people using public transport etc. However for me, the answer shouldn't therefore be 'right, everyone needs to start their (often horrendous) commutes again!' The answer should be, how does our entire infrastructure and supporting services need to change to support more flexible working that encourages better mental health and greater productivity.

For those that can work from anywhere if they have a laptop and internet connection, it's down to management/leadership to ensure productivity is being maintained. If they can't achieve that, they shouldn't be in the role.

 

[JohnD]

on topic

employment law, pay and conditions are very much on topic.