Flexible working has to work for both parties, it's not uncommon for there to be certain requirements built in to accommodate the business. So it's hardly unreasonable to expect people to attend for 2 hours in the week. However I would give notice of this, to enable people to be able to make any necessary arrangements. Others may suggest training online, if that's possible, then look into that. I however am not of the opinion that asking people to occasionally attend a workplace is a moral outrage :-)

Welcome to the communities and the profession

Not a moral outrage (and no one is suggesting it is) but maybe unnecessary and counterproductive.

Few things to think about

1) As its a trial you can amend the rules around that trial as it develops and before you set anything in stone. Therefore, you could stipulate one fixed period where everyone needs to be in. People would "have" to comply.

2) However, having one fixed period where everyone needs to be in one place appears to be flowing counter to your desire to offer maximum flexibility - you can do your hours whenever you like but have to travel to the office on Wednesdays seems an odd message to me.

3) If its purely training (rather than something else) then there are many many alternative options to getting people to travel in and all sit in a room together. I would explore all those first so you can keep your flexible approach. (And if this training needs to be face to face then I would consult about how to offer it - every week for 2 hours maybe more inconvenient than fortnightly for 4 or monthly for a day)

4) When a flexible working arrangement is formally agreed (if it's under the legislation) it stops being flexible and becomes fixed. Meaning its harder to change.

Welcome to the forum, Rachel.

Let's start with the question of 100% flexible working. This is good. I'm a fan. I assume your employers have found that (training aside) this works for them and their workforce and there's been no negative impact on productivity or profits as a result.

If so, the formula is good. Don't mess with it.

Then we come to training. In-person, two hours a week, every week, on the same day and at the same time, every week.

I need to start by saying that that's a *lot* of in-house training, especially for a business that otherwise has a model in which 100% of the work can be performed remotely. So the first question must be to ask whether all of that training is actually necessary.

Assuming that it is, then the next one is to ask if it all has to be in-person training or whether some, most or even all of it could be delivered remotely or online (most H&S and other mandatory training can be found online from credible providers with resources like learning portals and report generation to boot).

If it cannot be delivered remotely or online, in its entirety, the next question is whether *everyone* has to attend *every* session. Perhaps you could set a requirement that everyone must attend the following X topics every year and an additional Y topics per year, with the X topics being offered multiple times per year to allow flexibility to attend.

One of the big advantages of 100% flexible working is that it allows you to recruit outside your geographic region, to bring in talent that may live hundreds or even thousands of miles from the home office. If you insist on people attending the office once a week, you cut out a huge part of why enabling 100% remote working is a great idea. The other big part is that it gives people a lot of flexibility to fit their 36.5 hours per week around their daily lives. But if you stick a great big immoveable object in the middle of that weekly calendar, again, you pretty much skewer the feature of flexible working that makes it, well, work.

In reply to Annabel:

This is really helpful, thank you very much. I agree with having certain requirements for parts of the role i.e meetings etc. Yes I think we certainly need to work on remote training and how that can be done just as well as face to face if possible.

In reply to Keith:

Thank you for your comment Keith, this is really insightful and lots to take away so much appreciated thank you.

Welcome to the Community, Rachel.

In reply to Robey:

Hi Robey,

Thank you for your comment on my post, this has been really helpful and I appreciate you taking the time to share your views and ideas.

I think we have some working out to do with what works best for both parties and how training can be done remotely as well as in house.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Hi Steve, thank you very much! Nice to speak with you