I feel like a lot of this is so job/team specific. And commute time/ease really makes a difference.
I've had roles in the past where I hated my team, didn't collaborate, and had a hellish commute across town to the middle of nowhere. I was able to WFH two days a week and absolutely dreaded going into the office the other three days.
I'm currently in a role that includes a LOT of collaboration, I love my team/department and I have an 8 minute commute to downtown. DH also works downtown and there are a ton of great restaurants/parks so meeting up for lunch or a walk is an awesome perk. I'm voluntarily going in 5 days a week right now, even with the option of WFH 2 days a week.
Given the current environment with so many companies hiring, anyone that isn't happy in their current position for one reason or another, LOOK AROUND. Seriously, if you're able to change jobs, the next role/team/commute could change your perspective.
I think you need to look at yourself and your life and ask what would boost your quality of life the most? Maybe you cannot work from home, but is the commute shorter? Does it have better paid time off/vacation? Can you negotiate one day a week at home?
I also would consider the positives of working onsite - you get to meet and interact with all your colleagues. Friendships (cordial) help get work done and help with communication.
Where do you see this job taking you? Will it be a stepping stone to somewhere else? Is it on a path that you like or is it kind of a dead end you’re considering because it’s your alma mater?
WFH is nice for some people but it’s not the only thing to consider. Look at the whole package and what your day-to-day then year-to-year life would be like.
I will say that for me - I work onsite five days a week, I have good relationships with those onsite and people outside my department “know” me because I’m around. It helps with getting my work done efficiently. But, I needed a short commute to make all of that worth it. I left a slightly better paying job and hour away for my current one a mile away.
Yes, it would be a deal breaker. I'm in higher ed too (IT, though). I WFH 2 days a week pre-covid. We were home FT until June, then started coming back bit by bit. We're now back to 2 days at home. It's "fine", it's what we were doing, but my office was moved right before covid and the building I'm in is HORRIBLE. My team comes in, we basically only see one another, then we go home.
It's really affecting me - a lot. I DREAD having to go in and my one team member has been taking a LOT of leave recently (and I'm even, under the table, letting my 2 team members work from home a 3rd day).
Unless I find a GREAT job with a reasonable commute and an office that has energy and some degree of enthusiasm *, not being able to WFH at all is absolutely a deal breaker.
* I say that about the office because I realize a part of my feelings is based on the physical location of my office. It's really really cruddy and the plans to update the building/ bring more people into it have been scraped. It makes NO SENSE for us to go in 3 days a week.
For me, it would be a deal breaker because my job is one that can be done 100% remote. I personally like WFH and I have a few employees in Europe (I'm in the US), so the morning commute cuts into the part of our workdays that overlap.
I agree with others that I think employers who are mandating full-time in-person work when the work can be done remotely, or mostly remotely, are doing themselves a disservice and reducing their pool of future candidates. I believe schedule flexibility and the ability to work remotely will be key in winning talent going forward for industries/jobs that don't have to be in-person.
To add- my University has lost a lot of people. Last spring, they were talking about letting us WFH more once we returned "to campus", then in May, there was a total about face and suddenly there was an aggressive plan to get us back on campus most of the time (political pressure from our Governor to bring people back downtown). It was very sudden and not well received. We (IT) were initially being told that by Sept, we had to be back in the office 4 days a week. HUH??? I need to come back to the office MORE than I was pre-pandemic? Where's the logic?
Luckily, our CIO backed down on this and it's now 2 days at home, but I recently found out that one of our other schools is 4 days in the office.
In Aug and Sept - our retirements/ early retirements were significantly higher than they've ever been before!! People in the later stages of their career decided it just wasn't worth it and now we've lost a lot of talent and knowledge. And that's the spot I'm in with my one employee. She doesn't want to retire yet, but she is INCREDIBLY unhappy about coming back to the office. I think she's burning through a lot of her leave and I won't be surprised if she announces her retirement relatively soon.
Reality has changed and businesses are only going to hurt themselves if they don't realize this and make an effort to be more flexible.
I hate working from home with a passion BUT. I think most forward-looking employers are moving toward providing more flexibility, not less, and I’d wonder how else they’re behind the times. I wouldn’t mind a job where the general expectation was coming into the office everyday, but I would mind A LOT if you couldn’t easily WFH whenever you needed to (waiting for a plumber, doctor’s appointment, whatever.) Even in the Before Times, no one batted an eye at my current job if I was just like, I’m WFH today. And I’d do that maybe twice a month or so.
I agree with this too. I may hate WFH, but I have the option to do so up to 2 days per week, which I have rarely exercised so far since I started being able to go in five days a week since July. It is helpful for one-off things like home repairs, but it still wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me. When I'm home, I really don't want to work lol.
For DH yes it would be a deal breaker. For him his ideal is a hybrid schedule. Go in to the office twice a week and work from home the other days. For him it's not so much that WFH is so appealing but that the commute for most Houstonians is just awful. An hour to the office, an hour and a half home. Getting that time back is invaluable. He is looking around right now and most places are back in person 100%. He may have to give up on the idea of job flexibility but he's not happy about it.
For me I have only ever worked in retail management. There is no flexibility there at all.
Well, my current job prohibits it except for special exceptions, so, I guess it's not a deal breaker for me. But if I had WFH flexibility, it would probably be a deal breaker in deciding about a new job offer.
Yes. Dealbreaker. I'm in higher ed at a state school (trying to get out) and the other part to consider is pay stagnation. We typically get 0 - 2% COL increase and every year I stay I get more behind $ wise. Not all unis are the same, but lack of flexibility extends beyond WAH policies. Add to that next to no promotion opportunity unless you change colleges. The entire culture is behind the times. At my university benefits are eroding too-- they have changed what I was hired under to reduce retirement & insurance, restrict PTO (can now only use 5 days on sick kids/year max), not allow PTO the day before a holiday or you lose the holiday pay, require repayment on tuition remission when grades are below a B, now charging to use the campus gym...just lots of penny pinching and micromanagement.
I work in higher ed admin and so many of my friends (at other schools) are in a similar boat as you right now. They are all jumping ship for other schools that allow working from home. There are schools that allow it, full-time or hybrid, so if you want to work in higher ed, those jobs are out there. Pre-covid, my department worked from home one day a week, now we only go in for meetings as-needed. In your case, it sounds like this isn't the right job for you.
ETA: it would be a deal-breaker for me because my position can clearly be done from home. There is 0 reason for me to be in an office, so on principle I wouldn't take a job that made me go in 5 days a week.
Post by Velar Fricative on Nov 5, 2021 8:17:22 GMT -5
This thread reminds me of this article I read recently. There are many people with options to telecommute who either can't or don't want to work from home but they also don't want long commutes. I always figured companies would consider moving some of their office space to areas where their workers tend to live. It's not a perfect solution logistically but I could see it working for some companies.
Beyond just not allowing WFH, I'd really look hard at what about this job actually makes you excited to take it. Someone else said higher ed is a sinking ship, and they aren't wrong. Not all departments and not all institutions, but I spent almost 2 decades in higher ed (left in March 2021), and in that time, I was never given MORE and consistently asked to do more with less. The people I know who are still there are the ones who have a passion for it/for working with students or need the benefits or are so location bound they don't have many other choices.
The other thing I'd think about is if they are so inflexible and behind the times on their WFH policy, what else are they inflexible and behind the times on. Things in higher ed move SLOW. I always felt like every decision had to be run by literally everyone who may someday have a stake in it before a final decision could be made. I tried to speed the process up for my department where I could, but there are plenty of things that had to be decided outside my department. This goes for hiring and promoting as well. Especially on the staff side of things.
None of these things need to be deal breakers. But it can be jarring coming into a higher ed position especially if you have significant work experience outside of it.
Reality has changed and businesses are only going to hurt themselves if they don't realize this and make an effort to be more flexible.
Definitely this. My organization within DoD had a big retention issue pre-pandemic that's only gotten worse as leadership pushes return to office, and they seem completely unable to make the connection there despite lots of feedback that people want to keep schedule flexibility. When there are equivalent jobs with more generous telework policies at other nearby federal agencies, we are NEVER going to be able to be competitive in hiring and retaining qualified people.
Well, for me personally, it probably wouldn't be a dealbreaker because I don't really care for WFH. I do prefer somewhere with some flexibility, but I've been fortunate that my company has always provided the ability to work from home once in a while if the need arose, and that's good enough for me. As a manager, I hate managing a team that is currently allowed to do whatever they want, so if a place is allowing partial or mostly-all WFH, I'd really like a place that pushes for a consistent schedule at least.
Yes. Dealbreaker. I'm in higher ed at a state school (trying to get out) and the other part to consider is pay stagnation. We typically get 0 - 2% COL increase and every year I stay I get more behind $ wise. Not all unis are the same, but lack of flexibility extends beyond WAH policies. Add to that next to no promotion opportunity unless you change colleges. The entire culture is behind the times. At my university benefits are eroding too-- they have changed what I was hired under to reduce retirement & insurance, restrict PTO (can now only use 5 days on sick kids/year max), not allow PTO the day before a holiday or you lose the holiday pay, require repayment on tuition remission when grades are below a B, now charging to use the campus gym...just lots of penny pinching and micromanagement.
WOW. I'm higher ed too, and 120% agree about pay stagnation (yet I see all the upper level of management getting more $$.....). But all the other benefits they are changing on you? One of the things i've always been grateful for is "you have leave? use it". they don't micromanage it at ALL. And to restrict using PTO before a holiday? That makes NO sense at all. Holidays are exactly when people like to tack on extra days to make a vacation of it.
And - how do they KNOW how you're using your sick leave? I've never once been asked WHY I'm taking sick leave. I mean, sometimes I state the reason. But "I need to take today as a sick day" is perfectly acceptable.
This question is really dependent on the job for me. For most of the past 10 years until the pandemic, I have had the flexibility to WFH due to illness, meeting with a contractor, etc. Having this level of WFH is non-negotiable, especially since my spouse has far less flexibility in his job.
I have been WFH since the start of the pandemic but was really resistant to going back into the office. When I switched jobs, I really surprised myself by being open to being back in person, at least part-time. In my old job, they wanted us to go back so they could babysit employees and show our owners exactly what they were investing in; there was no real benefit for me to drive into work so I could conduct meetings remotely. In my new job, I'm working with others who are on-site and see huge benefits in having the chance to interact in-person. Also, on-boarding remotely has not gone particularly smoothly.
The office currently isn't open for all employees, but I'm hoping to land at WFH 2x/week early next year. My feelings would be really different if I didn't feel like there was an actual benefit to being in the office.
ECB, It's nuts. They require us to report "sick - self" or "sick - dependent" and track it in the payroll system. I'm not allowed to WAH but my kid is on quarantine now and I'm not allowed to use sick time beyond the 5 days in this situation so they "allowed" me to WAH under the table bc they didn't have any other system in place and needed me to work. This puts us at risk bc instead of having a process they "do us a favor" which can be turned on you and misrepresented as you breaking the rules. It also perpetuates toxic power imbalances.
They also started clawing back money on PTO too. We get all our 24 days advanced at the start of fiscal year and now in situations where someone quits and took more than the "earned" 2 days/month they deduct pay. They used to pay out the PTO balance and considered the 24 days/year all yours. I know bc when I quit in 2005 I got a payout. They closed the loophole. I've been back there 12 years and the changes have been incremental but substantial over time.
At this point in my life, I don’t see me accepting a full time in office position. I love my 5 monitors, my comfy chair, and my sit stand desk.
@@@ My kids are tiny, and being able to be “done” at 5 pm without an hour long commute home gives me the ability to have dinner ready right at 5, and they can be in bed by 7. I don’t see me adding that stress back into my life unless I don’t have any other choice.
It for sure would be a deal breaker for me. The job I was at when Covid started did not have a WFH policy, but once everything shut down they had no choice. However, I was expected to be back in the office once things were opened up (I worked in an industry that was very anti WFH at the time). I was super unhappy with how they handled it. I was actually recruited for the job I’m at now and they had a WFH policy several years before covid. They are very flexible and I can choose which 2 days I work at home. It has made a huge difference in my quality of life. I don’t think I would ever consider working somewhere that didn’t at least allow some WFH. Companies that aren’t flexible are going to have a much harder time attracting and retaining candidates. Also, from your description of the job it doesn’t sound any better than where you’re at now.
When I go back to work it will be in elementary or prek ed so I'll always be in person.
My H loves WFH 100% of the time. Ideally he'd love to get to going in for meeting/work in the office 2-4x/year for 3-5 days at a time. I think his current company will get to that eventually. They are extremely covid cautious though so no word on when that will happen.
I would like to be in the office about twice a week for certain things that are better in person, but I definitely wouldn't take a job that allowed no WFH at all. (My field does not require in-person contact. Obviously if I were in health care or something like that it would make sense to have to be in the "office".)
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Nov 5, 2021 9:34:29 GMT -5
I really feel for you. It wouldn't be an absolute deal breaker for me if the commute was really good and they allowed flexibility. But it would really make me think long and hard.
ETA: with what you described specifically, it sound like it would be a deal breaker for me.
I am a higher ed administrator with a (small) faculty appointment. We are strongly discouraged from WFH in my unit (even though much of the university appears to be permanent remote). Some functions really cannot for various reasons but I could WFH comfortably 2-3 day a week forever in my current role. I actually prefer being in the office but the commute gets hard. Right now I'm doing 1-2 days at home until someone tells me to stop. We are starting to lose mid level staff over this and I don't blame anyone. If a FT remote or more flexible position came my way without a significant pay cut I would seriously consider it.
So I am currently working FT in office and I think it is unnecessary. I am bitter about the lack of flexibility. I am currently looking for jobs and will only consider jobs at this point that have a hybrid work environment. For me it speaks to the employers respect for autonomy and the changing work environment. It is a really big priority for me currently and part of why I am even looking for a job.
I also work in higher ed. My institution has embraced a hybrid work environment. But my unit has not even though it absolutely could (and did) work. That has lead me to be looking elsewhere.
Well, I work in higher ed and we have been back in the office 5 days a week since July. It's... fine? I was much more upset by it initially than I am now. I will likely be working from home 1-2 day a week at some point, but even if that wasn't allowed, that wouldn't be enough by itself to make me quit. I have chosen higher ed as a career path, and I do not work for a remote university, so I guess I kind of expect that being on campus is part of the deal. I don't necessarily agree with it completely for all roles - including mine, which is not student facing - but so much of the campus experience as a student attending an in-person university includes having people there and engaged and ready to help and interact with students. I do think there should be some middle ground for non student facing roles, but I get that having tons of empty offices on campus has a different feel. Perhaps in the longer term there will be more of a cultural shift toward having less of that and not having students feel like they are missing something, but higher ed has always changed slowly so I am not terribly surprised that this is another example of that.
Allll that said, I would be less likely to take a new job if there wasn't some hybrid work option. Partly because I am not desperate for a new job, but that would be on my list of hopes if I were to move on, along with higher salary, advancement, good health benefits/vacation time, etc. I don't know that it would be a dealbreaker, but it would be a point in the negative category for sure and would require all the other "wants" to be met or exceeded to be able to balance it out.
ETA: I should add, from an HR perspective, I know part of our hesitance to embrace remote work is an equity issue. A lot of jobs, and especially lower paying jobs, really require on-campus work - admin assistants that are the face of the office when students drop by, facilities folks who need to be maintaining the grounds, healthcare assistants who need to staff the health center, bus drivers, etc. If we allow all our exempt staff, who are generally higher paid AND get better leave benefits, to also have the ability to work from home when many/most of our non-exempt staff have to be here to keep the lights on and maintain the campus for us, that doesn't look good or create a positive feeling for the on-campus folks. They are trying to find a balance of what makes sense and what is fair to everyone. This doesn't mean you should take the job - none of this is your problem, lol. But I do think the reason for requiring on-campus work is more complicated than "we are old fashioned and don't want to change".
The lack of flexibility would be a dealbreaker... but also, if I have a job I can do 100% from home (which I do) and they don't allow ANY WFH unless you're quarantining - like, not if you have a cold, not if you're waiting for a plumber, not if you have a doctor's appointment in the middle of the day, not if @@@ you have a sick kid @@@, then that's really a sign of poor management, too. I've had bosses who HATE letting people WFH because the only way they know how to manage people is to see them pounding away at their keyboards, in person, rather than measuring quality of output. It's micro-managy, and that just ruffles my feathers, almost as much as having to make my husband WFH due to a signature-required delivery.
FWIW, I'm still WFH full time, but I'll probably commute to the office maybe twice a week by some point next year - I'm also client-facing, though, so I'll start taking some on-site meetings.
Post by mrsukyankee on Nov 5, 2021 10:48:22 GMT -5
I love my job and I also love working from home. I'm now in 3 days a week and it's fine. With what will eventually go back to face to face counselling, it's a job I knew and know has to be in some sort of office, unless I'm willing to work at home as a private therapist (which I've tried and I'm not a good enough marketer to do). So, I expect I'll be fully back to work at some point. I'll miss not having to commute and being able to dress down a bit.
Post by redheadbaker on Nov 5, 2021 11:43:48 GMT -5
This campus is a short commute -- even shorter than the commute to my current office building (which I'm not making because WFH). If they allowed SOME remote work, even 2 days (which is what I had before COVID), I'd be more excited.
But anyway, I just got a third interview request from the other (bigger, more prominent) university I was also interviewing with (which is further away but does offer telework).
I think it would be a dealbreaker for me to have to be in the office 5 days a week. I’ve only been back at work remotely for four months but if they made me go down there every day (an hour each way without traffic, and there’s always traffic), I would quit. I don’t need this job. Having the flexibility of not commuting allows me to both work (and I am 100% getting things done) and do the rest of “life” that makes it worth it - @kid/family stuff, volunteering, working out. If I went in every day I would lose the ability to do a lot of the other stuff and that’s a hard nope from me.
We will be going “back in” at some point, in some capacity, but they’ve been pretty nebulous in saying what that will look like. A day or two a week, maybe, okay. One of my friends in a different part of the federal government said there was chatter that employees would have to go in twice a pay period to keep locality pay. I’d be fine with that. In the meantime, I’m just riding the wave.
Honestly unless it’s a job where you need to be there, I think the lack of flexibility shows a present day tone deafness from the employer. My husband in the corporate world sees it too and thinks the change will be long lasting. He is home two or occasionally three days a week. I (usually) like having him around and I think he should also keep doing it since he’s leadership and can help normalize it for others.