New right to request remote working

B

Broadcaster

Registered User
Messages
146
My daughter has been offered a senior position with new employer. However before accepting she asked about remote working for 2 days per week (she has very young children so needs a bit of flexibility). The company has designated the first year of employment as probationary period and claim their policy is not to allow remote working during this period…. That’s a full year!

My question is, given the new rules on remote working, does that trump any internal policy. In other words if the new rule states she can request remote working and can take it up after working for the company for 6 months, can the company still insist they will enforce their own policy.

Would appreciate any advice on this. Many thanks
 
Yes. You have a right to request it, and have it considered and a reason provided, not a right to get it.
The policy that all employees work fully on-site in their first year for onboarding is an objective reason and unless other new employees get more favourable treatment, can't really be challenged.
 
I would be raising my eyebrows a bit at that request to be in person for the first 12 months. So who is she going to be interacting with? Will the company require her line manager and her trainers to be on site with her for 12 months?

Plus there is new legislation on the probationary period “The Regulations provide that probationary periods in the private sector cannot exceed 6 months (and for public servants, cannot exceed 12 months). However, the Regulations also provide that probationary periods can on an exceptional basis be longer than 6 months provided they do not exceed 12 months and it would be in the interest of the employee to extend”

What does the company say about the probationary period and recent legalisation?

Your daughter should inquire
1 how many people in the org/department/section work hybrid.
2. Have their policies been updated to reflect recent legislation.
3 can she speak to other men and women in the org with young children to hear from them how the company policies work in practice.

And for the sake of equality what flexibility does the father have in his job? I assume he is shouldering half the load.
 
Clamball said:
Your daughter should inquire
1 how many people in the org/department/section work hybrid.
2. Have their policies been updated to reflect recent legislation.
3 can she speak to other men and women in the org with young children to hear from them how the company policies work in practice.
Click to expand...
As a hiring manager myself, if a candidate asked me those questions, alarm bells would go off in my head. I would see this as early signs of a difficult resource to manage.

i dont disagree with the fact that she should be aware of this info, I have just seen these type of questions from candidates too often since Covid and if they are hired, in a lot of cases they have not worked out and end up trying to make demands once they are employed.
 
Also as it is a senior position the Qs suggest the individual may not be willing to sell the party line / org policies to the team which could also be seen as a red flag
 
I agree, I would not think these are questions that normally come up, but given the poor response to the query on remote working she needs to delve into it further. My company say flexibility around work is the number 1 question from all candidates since Covid.

Interviewing is a 2 way thing, she needs to know if the company suits her too.

I don’t see staff wanting flexibility as a sign they are being difficult, I see the advent of the laptop and phone allowing people to work in many locations and still be effective. Plus to encourage greater equality at senior roles companies need to consider the impact of their policies as being barriers to equality.

She should definitely check out the gender balance report for the company.
 
messyleo said:
Also as it is a senior position the Qs suggest the individual may not be willing to sell the party line / org policies to the team which could also be seen as a red flag
Click to expand...

Senior staff should challenge policies that inhibit having a diverse workforce. It is good for companies to have staff who do not toe the party line but challenge it instead. (Respectfully and with good arguments of course). Companies who want to only employ staff who look and speak like them suffer in the long run.

When my kids were in the crèche 20 years ago, my then manager (female) would not allow me to change my working hours 2 days per week from 9 - 5:30 to 8:30-5 so I could physically get to the crèche before it closed at 6. My spouse could collect them the other 3 days. I asked for several years and there was no change, then I realised another new male staff member (no kids) was allowed to work 8-5 so he could make his train home. I just changed my hours there and then and never went back to the official hours.

Times have changed significantly since then and no one bats an eye at someone taking off to pick up a sick kid or who is delayed due to school drop off. Because as long as they have their phone and laptop they can catch up on the work later that day etc.
 
Has she enquire about the policy after the probationary period? Would 2 days wfh then be allowed? Plenty of companies have very limited work from home policies. If the policy doesn't work for her, I would advise her not to accept the position.
 
Clamball said:
Senior staff should challenge policies that inhibit having a diverse workforce. It is good for companies to have staff who do not toe the party line but challenge it instead. (Respectfully and with good arguments of course). Companies who want to only employ staff who look and speak like them suffer in the long run.

When my kids were in the crèche 20 years ago, my then manager (female) would not allow me to change my working hours 2 days per week from 9 - 5:30 to 8:30-5 so I could physically get to the crèche before it closed at 6. My spouse could collect them the other 3 days. I asked for several years and there was no change, then I realised another new male staff member (no kids) was allowed to work 8-5 so he could make his train home. I just changed my hours there and then and never went back to the official hours.

Times have changed significantly since then and no one bats an eye at someone taking off to pick up a sick kid or who is delayed due to school drop off. Because as long as they have their phone and laptop they can catch up on the work later that day etc.
Click to expand...

I wish the world was like this, and the HR website may say these nice things to attract talent, but really very few orgs (if any) are like this when it comes to the crunch. Wait till you find yourself in a tight spot if you raise a concern about being bullied or harassed, or when you lose some sales leads, and see how much they embrace diversity and challenge. You will be the one thrown under the bus first to save the company's reputation.
 
Thanks for all the replies and advice. Always good to get other views.

I’m still at a loss to know however, if the new rules mean the company can still use their internal policy I,e, no remote working in the probation year. In other words does the law trump the internal policy. I know the right is to ask and not to get and also that the company has to provide good reason for a refusal. Is probationary period considered good reason.?

By the way these are just my questions to be sure I can offer sound advice so thanks again for your help,
 
Your only recourse would be taking a case to WRC - and that would only apply if you take the job.
it is not the WRC's role to decide if a reason is "good" or not but rather that the company's process was followed in allowing the worker request remote working
I think a lot of workers have realised the new "right" isn't all that they thought it was and employers still hold the cards for the most part, once they cross the t's and dot the i's in terms of following their process
 
Is this a joke? We’re now talking about the WRC for someone who hasn’t even started a role!

The ‘right to request remote working’ is just that, an entitlement to ask to work from home and to get a reasonable response. It’s eminently reasonable for someone to be in the office initially to learn the ropes. A company taking the position that people should be in the office for the first 12 months makes total sense.

No wonder younger generations jump from job to job and have insufficient pension provision…they’re adopting ludicrous positions like this. Be serious about your career or don’t. People earn the trust that’s required to work from home. When I hear candidates opening with ‘what’s your work from home policy?’ I mentally bin them. There are far too many exceptional candidates focussed on their careers to worry about woke bedwetters.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
Is this a joke? We’re now talking about the WRC for someone who hasn’t even started a role!

The ‘right to request remote working’ is just that, an entitlement to ask to work from home and to get a reasonable response. It’s eminently reasonable for someone to be in the office initially to learn the ropes. A company taking the position that people should be in the office for the first 12 months makes total sense.

No wonder younger generations jump from job to job and have insufficient pension provision…they’re adopting ludicrous positions like this. Be serious about your career or don’t. People earn the trust that’s required to work from home. When I hear candidates opening with ‘what’s your work from home policy?’ I mentally bin them. There are far too many exceptional candidates focussed on their careers to worry about woke bedwetters.
Click to expand...
It has to be an age thing…god help these people when the next recession comes our way..
 
Bluefin said:
It has to be an age thing…god help these people when the next recession comes our way..
Click to expand...
I agree. There’s a tsumami that’s already started bringing people back into offices and in 20 years’ time there’ll be a cohort of people who resisted with no career and no pension whinging about how the world owes them a living.

Working from home can make sense in certain very limited circumstances but in general it’s spoof and a ruse for people to mind their kids and do the grocery shopping on company time. The right to work from home on occasion needs to be earned.
 
JoeRoberts said:
I have many telephone conversations with people from other organisations who are "working from home". The child they are minding is often screaming in the background. They end up apologising. It's unreal.
Click to expand...
These people are charlatans who’ll be the first for the chop when the next downturn comes.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
I agree. There’s a tsumami that’s already started bringing people back into offices and in 20 years’ time there’ll be a cohort of people who resisted with no career and no pension whinging about how the world owes them a living.

Working from home can make sense in certain very limited circumstances but in general it’s spoof and a ruse for people to mind their kids and do the grocery shopping on company time. The right to work from home on occasion needs to be earned.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of companies (my own employer included) who's productivity has increased since the introduction of WFH. Working on the office is a ruse for people to get away with doing nothing and relying on being seen as a substitute for results. When WFH, results are all that can be seen, and there's nowhere to hide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top