Avoiding RTO Forum

[Anonymous User]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a V20 5th year. I think it also depends on how much your practice area needs good camaraderie. For instance, in M&A, you work crazy long hours with little sleep and during those late nights, it's just much more tolerable if you are actually with your colleagues eating pizza, fried chicken or what have you, and talking about not only work, but also life. None of that is present if everyone works from home. I do like the flexibility of working from home, but think mandatory two or three days in the office should be fine at least for that office camaraderie.

Just stop. Idk if you're trolling, but if not, this is one of the worst arguments for WFH I've heard. There are some of us who have lives outside of work. The last thing I want after pulling an all-nighter to close a deal is to be forced into the office away from my wife and kids so you can sit in the conference room and eat fried chicken with your work friends. In a WFH world, you and your buddies can still eat all the fried chicken you want either in-office or at your house. Have at it.

That quoted midlevel anon. I guess most folks here haven't gone through the days leading up to signing where all-nighters are common. You chit chat and eat stuff with your colleagues because you will be there all night anyway. Whether you have kids should make a difference, and I was never arguing for a full RTO if you read carefully. I don't take my job seriously, but the only things that keep me sane during the worst times in my practice area, M&A, are the pay and good colleagues.

In all honesty, I'd rather just be at home by 2 am and get some sleep, but during the craziest days leading up to signing in some deals, there's no choice. I've done this shit for over 4 years and sometimes there's just no choice other than not sleeping through the entire night. I've gone through those periods while working from home and while being with colleagues, and I prefer the latter.

One more point, what's wrong with being in the office two or three days a week? There can be more flexibility for people with children. I would hate having to be in the office for all 5 week days, but I also think it's ridiculous that offices are empty when the pandemic is not even a serious concern any more. The extremists here should learn to make compromises and live with other people. Look at the world from the other person's perspective.

No I won't. Because I go home at 6, even with RTO. If I have to stay up, I'll be at home.

Before covid began in 2020, you had no choice. lol at thinking you can do whatever you want during the few days leading up to signing. It's different for each deal, but there were those crazy deals once or twice a year or so. Never liked them of course, but sometimes there's no choice.

You probably entered biglaw in 2020 or 2021 or never yet have gone through the worst times. Things happen, and while maintaining flexibility, it's better to make sure that at least on some days, associates will come in. If things are not so bad and you can go home by 3 am, that's all good. No fucking sane person in the world likes pulling all nighters for Christ's sake.

I entered biglaw in 2017. Requiring RTO for any amount of time solely because you want to eat fried chicken with your friends pulling an all-nighter once or twice per year is insane.

[Anonymous User]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

Good luck maintaining a workforce, boomer

[Anonymous User]

The midlevel anon. Maybe it's just the whole idea of being forced into doing something that's irksome to many people. I don't like that myself either. But what's really wrong with having to go into the office twice a week to do your job for which you are paid over 300k in your 20s or early 30s? Earlier this year, I remember making plans with some colleagues or asking each other whether they are going to the office so that we can meet up once or twice a week in the office to grab a lunch or get coffee. Yea, being forced into that arrangement sucks. I get that. But is it that bad? I don't get it.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a V20 5th year. I think it also depends on how much your practice area needs good camaraderie. For instance, in M&A, you work crazy long hours with little sleep and during those late nights, it's just much more tolerable if you are actually with your colleagues eating pizza, fried chicken or what have you, and talking about not only work, but also life. None of that is present if everyone works from home. I do like the flexibility of working from home, but think mandatory two or three days in the office should be fine at least for that office camaraderie.

Just stop. Idk if you're trolling, but if not, this is one of the worst arguments for WFH I've heard. There are some of us who have lives outside of work. The last thing I want after pulling an all-nighter to close a deal is to be forced into the office away from my wife and kids so you can sit in the conference room and eat fried chicken with your work friends. In a WFH world, you and your buddies can still eat all the fried chicken you want either in-office or at your house. Have at it.

That quoted midlevel anon. I guess most folks here haven't gone through the days leading up to signing where all-nighters are common. You chit chat and eat stuff with your colleagues because you will be there all night anyway. Whether you have kids should make a difference, and I was never arguing for a full RTO if you read carefully. I don't take my job seriously, but the only things that keep me sane during the worst times in my practice area, M&A, are the pay and good colleagues.

In all honesty, I'd rather just be at home by 2 am and get some sleep, but during the craziest days leading up to signing in some deals, there's no choice. I've done this shit for over 4 years and sometimes there's just no choice other than not sleeping through the entire night. I've gone through those periods while working from home and while being with colleagues, and I prefer the latter.

One more point, what's wrong with being in the office two or three days a week? There can be more flexibility for people with children. I would hate having to be in the office for all 5 week days, but I also think it's ridiculous that offices are empty when the pandemic is not even a serious concern any more. The extremists here should learn to make compromises and live with other people. Look at the world from the other person's perspective.

No I won't. Because I go home at 6, even with RTO. If I have to stay up, I'll be at home.

Before covid began in 2020, you had no choice. lol at thinking you can do whatever you want during the few days leading up to signing. It's different for each deal, but there were those crazy deals once or twice a year or so. Never liked them of course, but sometimes there's no choice.

You probably entered biglaw in 2020 or 2021 or never yet have gone through the worst times. Things happen, and while maintaining flexibility, it's better to make sure that at least on some days, associates will come in. If things are not so bad and you can go home by 3 am, that's all good. No fucking sane person in the world likes pulling all nighters for Christ's sake.

I entered biglaw in 2017. Requiring RTO for any amount of time solely because you want to eat fried chicken with your friends pulling an all-nighter once or twice per year is insane.

Entered in 2017. I guess you never did M&A. Never argued that we should require RTO "for any amount of time solely because you want to eat fried chicken with your friends pulling an all-nighter once or twice per year". That's a complete distortion of what I was saying. But never mind. I give up.

[Anonymous User]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

Good luck maintaining a workforce, boomer

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a V20 5th year. I think it also depends on how much your practice area needs good camaraderie. For instance, in M&A, you work crazy long hours with little sleep and during those late nights, it's just much more tolerable if you are actually with your colleagues eating pizza, fried chicken or what have you, and talking about not only work, but also life. None of that is present if everyone works from home. I do like the flexibility of working from home, but think mandatory two or three days in the office should be fine at least for that office camaraderie.

Just stop. Idk if you're trolling, but if not, this is one of the worst arguments for WFH I've heard. There are some of us who have lives outside of work. The last thing I want after pulling an all-nighter to close a deal is to be forced into the office away from my wife and kids so you can sit in the conference room and eat fried chicken with your work friends. In a WFH world, you and your buddies can still eat all the fried chicken you want either in-office or at your house. Have at it.

That quoted midlevel anon. I guess most folks here haven't gone through the days leading up to signing where all-nighters are common. You chit chat and eat stuff with your colleagues because you will be there all night anyway. Whether you have kids should make a difference, and I was never arguing for a full RTO if you read carefully. I don't take my job seriously, but the only things that keep me sane during the worst times in my practice area, M&A, are the pay and good colleagues.

In all honesty, I'd rather just be at home by 2 am and get some sleep, but during the craziest days leading up to signing in some deals, there's no choice. I've done this shit for over 4 years and sometimes there's just no choice other than not sleeping through the entire night. I've gone through those periods while working from home and while being with colleagues, and I prefer the latter.

One more point, what's wrong with being in the office two or three days a week? There can be more flexibility for people with children. I would hate having to be in the office for all 5 week days, but I also think it's ridiculous that offices are empty when the pandemic is not even a serious concern any more. The extremists here should learn to make compromises and live with other people. Look at the world from the other person's perspective.

No I won't. Because I go home at 6, even with RTO. If I have to stay up, I'll be at home.

Before covid began in 2020, you had no choice. lol at thinking you can do whatever you want during the few days leading up to signing. It's different for each deal, but there were those crazy deals once or twice a year or so. Never liked them of course, but sometimes there's no choice.

You probably entered biglaw in 2020 or 2021 or never yet have gone through the worst times. Things happen, and while maintaining flexibility, it's better to make sure that at least on some days, associates will come in. If things are not so bad and you can go home by 3 am, that's all good. No fucking sane person in the world likes pulling all nighters for Christ's sake.

Whatever rule required people to spend those miserable hours in the office can simply be unmade. I have a choice, because we've shown over the past two years that these deals can close just fine with everyone working together, remote. There's zero need or justification to force people to spend their nights and weekends in the office. That's a seriously insane opinion on your end.

I'm not taking an antisocial WFH forever view. Schedule your meetings and get your in person quality time in normal business hours, TWTh. Then we go home. And we keep working at night from home when necessary. But nobody is going to die if I can't answer emails for 45 minutes while commuting.

[Anonymous User]

The midlevel anon. Maybe it's just the whole idea of being forced into doing something that's irksome to many people. I don't like that myself either. But what's really wrong with having to go into the office twice a week to do your job for which you are paid over 300k in your 20s or early 30s? Earlier this year, I remember making plans with some colleagues or asking each other whether they are going to the office so that we can meet up once or twice a week in the office to grab a lunch or get coffee. Yea, being forced into that arrangement sucks. I get that. But is it that bad? I don't get it.

Are we reading the same thread? Most people are probably OK with twice a week for a few hours. Not with spending nights at work.

[Anonymous User]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

Good luck maintaining a workforce, boomer

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

Well yeah if you make a dumb and likely unconstitutional law, people will comply. And it will suck. Life doesn't have to suck. We can find a middle way that both learns the lessons of too much isolation and recognizes that everyone still closed deals even more efficiently while WFH. So, hybrid.

[Anonymous User]

One awesome thing about the RTO push is all the free lunches/dinners firms are now offering in order to lure us back in. Honestly, I am most likely outing myself as a lazy/fat POS, but if my firm ordered us lunch everyday I'd probably be in-person like 4x/week. The time saved on cooking/dishes makes the commute much, much more manageable. (Partners, if you're listening, feed us more pls and thank.)

I can DoorDash lunch (or walk outside for 5 minutes to pick it up) for like $20-25 on the high end after tax and tip. Seems like you're a pretty cheap date. No judgment, just think it's funny that we are talking $100 a week max to change behavior in this way for a job that pays as much as ours does.

I definitely agree that I'm a pretty cheap date. I'm just saying that most firms from what I've seen are using the stick when the carrot is probably a much better option. There's a lot of passive aggressive emails and conference calls, draconian policies all designed to get us to come in to an office that most of us have made clear we don't want to be spending the majority of the work week in.

Instead of the weird guilt trip (even in this thread the weird takes about how being in a cramped office with other overworked associates makes the work somehow better) maybe firms could try luring us back with increased perks? Pay for 100% of commute costs, provide meals for all associates (none of this daily billable thresholder either cheapskates), give us bigger offices (some juniors are still in internal spaces when there's plenty of exterior space now!), etc.

The cat is out of the bag, WFH is king. If firms want to change that, they're going to have to get creative on the incentive front.

[Anonymous User]

The midlevel anon. Maybe it's just the whole idea of being forced into doing something that's irksome to many people. I don't like that myself either. But what's really wrong with having to go into the office twice a week to do your job for which you are paid over 300k in your 20s or early 30s? Earlier this year, I remember making plans with some colleagues or asking each other whether they are going to the office so that we can meet up once or twice a week in the office to grab a lunch or get coffee. Yea, being forced into that arrangement sucks. I get that. But is it that bad? I don't get it.

Are we reading the same thread? Most people are probably OK with twice a week for a few hours. Not with spending nights at work.

My point was never that we should force people to spend nights at work. It looks like I didn't make my point clearly. I was trying to say that you can't really make that friendship, camaraderie with colleagues when everyone generally works from home, and to me, that bond has been quite important regardless of where people pull all nighters.

[Anonymous User]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

Good luck maintaining a workforce, boomer

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

Well yeah if you make a dumb and likely unconstitutional law, people will comply. And it will suck. Life doesn't have to suck. We can find a middle way that both learns the lessons of too much isolation and recognizes that everyone still closed deals even more efficiently while WFH. So, hybrid.

Nope. You will learn (or relearn) to love humanity and engage in fellowship with your fellow man.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW (and IMHO) I think the only reason RTO is being loosely enforced is because COVID continues to be a concern for large groups of associates (and a potential liability for the firm?) - not because "the cat is already out of the bag." I got this sense from firm management when I lightly addressed the pitiful response to RTO. If someone released a new vaccine tomorrow that was 99% effective forever and ever and meant COVID was a thing of the past, I bet firms would be pushing harder.

With that said, I could be wrong. I'm a part-time RTO supporter, but this could just as easily be a recognition by the powers that be that WFH is here to stay for some. Any others have insight into why their firms are being so chill about RTO? This is relevant to OP's Q, as if I'm wrong then it should be pretty easy to continue to avoid RTO.

[blair.waldorf]

You make good arguments for why WFH is helpful for you, but in the end of the day law firms will make a business decision. If RTO was so detrimental to their bottom line, productivity, diversity goals, etc. then why is pretty much every major firm requiring it? You say "culture" isn't good enough, but others (who have WAY more power than you) say it is. It's a judgment call, and while your opinion is certainly valid for you, you're not the one that gets to make a final decision. If you don't like what your firm decides, then find somewhere else that fits your preferences. I've heard a lot of threats about leaving, but I don't know a single person who has actually done it.

I disagree with most of your post, and I think that lots of older partners are not requiring RTO because they have weighed several factors and think RTO is still superior to WFH, but are instead requiring it because it's what they know and want. And like, that's fine I suppose, they are the people who get to make the decisions here. But I don't think we need to pretend that partners are often making informed RTO/WFH decisions.

The main reason I'm responding to your post, however, is that I actually did lateral due to strict RTO policies and know several people who did.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

lmao, it's genuinely funny how these people always tell on themselves

[Anonymous User]

You make good arguments for why WFH is helpful for you, but in the end of the day law firms will make a business decision. If RTO was so detrimental to their bottom line, productivity, diversity goals, etc. then why is pretty much every major firm requiring it? You say "culture" isn't good enough, but others (who have WAY more power than you) say it is. It's a judgment call, and while your opinion is certainly valid for you, you're not the one that gets to make a final decision. If you don't like what your firm decides, then find somewhere else that fits your preferences. I've heard a lot of threats about leaving, but I don't know a single person who has actually done it.

I disagree with most of your post, and I think that lots of older partners are not requiring RTO because they have weighed several factors and think RTO is still superior to WFH, but are instead requiring it because it's what they know and want. And like, that's fine I suppose, they are the people who get to make the decisions here. But I don't think we need to pretend that partners are often making informed RTO/WFH decisions.

The main reason I'm responding to your post, however, is that I actually did lateral due to strict RTO policies and know several people who did.

I did as well. Left a V10 because f that.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

lmao, it's genuinely funny how these people always tell on themselves

Right?? What part of "I want to spend time with my wife and kids" wasn't clear?

[Anonymous User]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

Good luck maintaining a workforce, boomer

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

Well yeah if you make a dumb and likely unconstitutional law, people will comply. And it will suck. Life doesn't have to suck. We can find a middle way that both learns the lessons of too much isolation and recognizes that everyone still closed deals even more efficiently while WFH. So, hybrid.

Nope. You will learn (or relearn) to love humanity and engage in fellowship with your fellow man.

I really really want to know how you can review a contract without basic reading comprehension. Avg of 20 hrs a week is plenty enough to "engage in fellowship" and there's plenty of humanity outside of the office. Being in the office 24/7 restricts my social life.

In any case, you're obviously insane so I'm going to stop engaging with you. Good luck with the beatings, hope morale improves.

[blair.waldorf]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

Good luck maintaining a workforce, boomer

I'm a Millennial, and believe it or not, but prior to 2020 the workforce was maintained just fine without the ubiquity of WFH. People would wake up and commute to this thing called an "office," and interact with their coworkers *gasp* IN-PERSON. You really think requiring people to do this again would destroy the workforce? No. First off, if anything, it's the Boomers who are pushing hardest for WFH because they've already had long successful careers and want to spend their last few working years in their nice houses. Furthermore, what would be the alternative if WFH were illegal? Not working and starving to death? I think you'll find that almost every worker would capitulate, and they will quickly learn to actually socialize and engage with their fellow humans once again rather than spending all day festering alone in an apartment.

FWIW, I'm sure if I was single living alone in a studio apartment or something, I'd go into the office pretty regularly. I spend time with my partner, my dog, and my family (and I do regularly do coffee/lunch/happy hour with colleagues and friends at other firms/in other professions). I'm not spending all of my time alone, I'm just spending it with the people who matter most to me instead of my colleagues.

[Ultramar vistas]

People don’t talk about the flip side of this “will people actually leave their job because of the WFH policy” but I actually know a couple of people (one in law and one in accounting) who have lateralled firms to go TO a firm that is encouraging RTO. Both of them are social people who were disappointed with their prior firms’ decision to stay WFH and felt that their quality of life and the quality of work done has diminished in light of that decision.

Not going to take a position one way or the other given the vitriol in this thread, but the argument that firms will lose talent if they push RTO can definitely be made in the other direction too - and if you’re a law firm recruiting manager, would you rather attract the people who like to RTO, or the people who want to WFH?

[nixy]

WFH is comparable to a hard-core drug and I would like to see it outlawed entirely. The insane growth of antisocial behavior in this country over the past two years is slowly destroying our communities and society altogether. No, I'm not trolling. Everyone should be forced back into the office full time.

The whiplash of ad hominems on both sides of this debate is amazing. I’ve been sort of lukewarm-ly been defending some form of RTO but can’t if this post is on that side.

[Anonymous User]

Would be useful to have some sort of list of which firms are fully RTO, which fully WFH, hybrid etc. Seems like these are the categories, am I missing anything? Might make a new thread and try to keep that one slightly less toxic.

A. Fully in person, 5 days a week
B. Tue-Wed-Th mandatory
C. Some in person required/strongly encouraged but less than 3 days or not really mandatory,
D. Fully flexible / WFH

[Er435]

Would be useful to have some sort of list of which firms are fully RTO, which fully WFH, hybrid etc. Seems like these are the categories, am I missing anything? Might make a new thread and try to keep that one slightly less toxic.

A. Fully in person, 5 days a week
B. Tue-Wed-Th mandatory
C. Some in person required/strongly encouraged but less than 3 days or not really mandatory,
D. Fully flexible / WFH

I think DPW hilariously couldn't just stickwith (B), but requires an additional floating in-office day every two weeks. Seven days in-office for every 10 days iirc.

[BrowsingTLS]

Would be useful to have some sort of list of which firms are fully RTO, which fully WFH, hybrid etc. Seems like these are the categories, am I missing anything? Might make a new thread and try to keep that one slightly less toxic.

A. Fully in person, 5 days a week
B. Tue-Wed-Th mandatory
C. Some in person required/strongly encouraged but less than 3 days or not really mandatory,
D. Fully flexible / WFH

For B I would just say three days mandatory and specify the days if you want. Otherwise, you're only capturing a subsection of firms requiring 3 days.

[Anonymous User]

Would be useful to have some sort of list of which firms are fully RTO, which fully WFH, hybrid etc. Seems like these are the categories, am I missing anything? Might make a new thread and try to keep that one slightly less toxic.

A. Fully in person, 5 days a week
B. Tue-Wed-Th mandatory
C. Some in person required/strongly encouraged but less than 3 days or not really mandatory,
D. Fully flexible / WFH

For B I would just say three days mandatory and specify the days if you want. Otherwise, you're only capturing a subsection of firms requiring 3 days.

I think there's a qualitative difference between firms going to a formal middle of the week 3 days in person, and flexible pick any 3 days. Unless they're taking attendance, flexi any 3 days sort of becomes not mandatory bc who's to know when you came in unless they take attendance. But if everyone is expected to come in on a specific 3 days (and a few firms seem to be going to this) then if you miss a day suddenly you missed a day.