Work from home is a difficult topic of discussion at the firm. The entire company was recently given the opportunity to work at home a maximum of two days a week. The decision was clearly a pain point for management, who insist that in-person collaboration is paramount to the firm's success, but offered this perk as a response to the recent loss of four employees who all cited work/life balance as a reason for leaving. From what I can tell, a considerable number of employees feel they can be just as (if not more) productive and successful with more time at home.
Management made a mistake in May 2021. An employee who was hired the October prior transitioned to working remotely full-time in May, setting a precedent for a full-time WFH option. This has not yet presented issues for the company, but it is certainly a problematic deficit in perks compared to what all other employees are offered, and may cause tension in the future. Management needs to seriously consider what fairness of perks looks like for all employees, and find meaningful, constructive ways to discuss the home office in a way that protects employee interests while opening channels for deliberate communication surrounding expectations and needs.
