70% of employees are keen to see a four-day working week
Employers may be keen to get in-office models rolled out, but for employees the thought of returning to the workplace is causing major anxiety. A recent report from Slack found that 70% of employees are keen to see a four-day working week instead – with just two in five staff believing that their employer actually cares about their mental health post-pandemic.
Almost half claim hybrid working is best for their mental health, but only one in four have a free choice over if and when they work in the office. What’s more, the report indicates three out of four workers experienced burnout in the past year, with a third putting in more hours. So, how exactly should HR proceed? Should we mandate a return to work and hope our people just get used to it? Or should we look at making the return to work more flexible?
Remote work: Homework, bingo, and movies: Employees reveal bad 'remote work' habits
“We have seen our clients deal with these issues in lots of creative ways but it always centres around continuous and open dialogue between both the employee and the employer about their various concerns,” Brigitte Weaver, senior associate at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, told HRD. “Some HR teams are having weekly one-to-one catch ups with employees who are struggling.
“To make the ‘new normal’ work, businesses should also reflect on the way they have previously done things for example, more frequent and more informal appraisals, publishing, attendance lists, meeting availability, breaks at lunchtime and honesty about family commitments in the working day etc. Clear parameters around these issues build a framework for good working practices and most importantly they encourage trust between the parties. In our view, hybrid working is a now a fact of life for many people and it is already driving recruitment and competition between firms. Employers need to seriously consider how their practices affect their brand in the market.”
For a legal standpoint, employees really can’t insist on a continued WFH set up. But what are employers legal options if a worker simply refuses to abide by the rules?
“As we move towards the second anniversary of this pandemic, there’ll be a strong argument on the part of the employer, who implemented the work from home arrangements, that the employee knew that requirement arose in the context of a public health emergency,” Matthew L.O. Certosimo, partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, told HRD. “As such, employers will say that work from home was temporary, linked to the pandemic, not a permanent feature of the employment relationship.
Read more: Politics and respect at work in election season
“Essentially, at some point, employers may find themselves having tacitly agreed to an effective amendment,” Certosimo told HRD. “The key piece of advice for employers is to communicate the temporary nature of the work from home arrangement – explaining that it's necessary because of government or public health orders and health and safety practices – and to outline their return-to-work plan.”
However, just because you can insist an employee return to the office doesn’t mean you should. In the wake of the Great Reengagement, employers should be embracing flexibility when it comes to new ways of working. What works for one employee may not work for another – so instead of rolling out one size fits all policies, look at things in a case by case basis.
“To treat people fairly you have to treat them differently,” added Dr Melanie Peacock, associate professor of HR at Mount Royal. “The key is that there needs to be clearly communicated understanding across the employee base as to why differences occur. If not, resentment, frustration, and disengaged workers will likely result. Employees may also leave if they don't understand why these types of decisions are being made and if they believe they are being treated unfairly and inequitably.”
