I don't understand any policy that picks an arbitrary limit of working from a particular location (be it office, home or Starbucks) and makes that the "law". It doesn't embrace or really understand flexible working and remains focused on location not outputs.

It treats wfh/Starbucks/anywhere other than the office as a "treat" and a "perk" rather than what it should be - a normal part of working life in 2022 where its possible and where output is maintained.

It also throws up situations like this which are problematic. It "is" unfair to part time employees, particularly those working less than 5 days a week or variable hours in the week. It also appears to have no flexibility where someone is close to the margins.

Do I think its challengeable - well arguably its less favourable treatment - but given its not banned out right its a long shot. But is that really the point?

Hi Lesley,

A similar recent thread...

 Part Timers & Working From Home 

I have to say that I agree with Keith. You are not alone though; we have had a lot of posts like this.

As Keith says... "it doesn't embrace or really understand flexible working and remains focused on location not outputs."

I think you are right to challenge back... if that is your inclination.

I've said this a lot, recently, but I'm not going to shut up about it.

we implemented a policy to allow our employees to apply to work a maximum of 2 days (40%) full time equivalent per week from home

Why? What is the reasoning behind this policy? I realize that Lesley wasn't responsible for the policy, but I see similar "hybrid" policies all over the place and they are strategically illiterate and legally dangerous.

Strategically illiterate because, if your employees can do their work from home and wish to do their work from home, you should just let them do their work from home. The research data is very clear that they will be more productive, less likely to resign and save the company a good deal of money in the process. If office attendance has a clear operational justification or there is work that cannot be done from home, then obviously there is good reason to be at the workplace. But otherwise, it just looks like employers/managers can't psychologically deal with the idea of managing remote employees, which - strategically, again - makes them look weak and ineffective.

It's legally dangerous because the Flexible Working Regulations allow employees to ask for any reasonable arrangement of flexible working that can be accommodated by their employer. So if you have a policy that says "up to two days", there is a risk that managers will reject applications for remote working for more than two days on that basis alone, which is not a fair or permissible reason to reject flexible working. Do that often enough and someone will eventually sue you on equality grounds and the manure will strike the windmill.

So whether the pro rating of this policy is fair or not is, in fact, a much smaller issue than whether the policy - pro rated or not - is, in fact, fair or intelligent.