Would you ?

[d000hg]

I'm happy with my current gig

Sounds like you are in a contract so the question is moot.

[stek]

Trains are unreliable in this country especially in winter. Frozen signals, leaves on the line, cracked rails...

I've found the train to be much better than the motorway system though to be fair I'd normally be taking the M25

[vwdan]

I probably would but only if it wasn't going to burn bridges with my current place and if the cost still added up including WFH. I spend a substantial amount on travel, so my occasional WFH days are extremely profitable in comparison even though I don't really care for WFH in general.

[steve80]

I've decided.... Staying put. £100 extra a day or see my three boys more? Family first WFH is golden

[cherhill]

I think I would do it if I was on a low rate to start with and this extra £100 would make a big differemce to my life. If I were on a rate that I thought was OK and I had some money to put away each month then I wouldn't bother. Working from home is priceless if you have a young family like I do.

So all depends on your circumstances to how you choose.

[BolshieBastard]

I think I would do it if I was on a low rate to start with and this extra £100 would make a big differemce to my life. If I were on a rate that I thought was OK and I had some money to put away each month then I wouldn't bother. Working from home is priceless if you have a young family like I do.

So all depends on your circumstances to how you choose.

Dont see what being on a low rate has to do with it. If you're on £350 a day and another role paying £100 a day more comes along (taking into account the conditions the OP stated ie same distance etc) why anyone would turn it down?

That's another 500 a week, another 13k over a 26 week contract.

Personally, I dont see what WFH has to do with it either. If you're WFH you shouldnt be seeing the kids more, you're supposed to be working and in a 6 month contract the extra time seeing the kids during the WFH period would be minimal.

Obviously each to their own though but yet again, this forum provides conflicting advice.

[d000hg]

£100 on £600 is clearly less of a factor than £100 on £250.

I agree you shouldn't be seeing the kids while working but it does mean you potentially have up to 2hrs more at home when you're not working... plus you might see them at lunchtime, be able to work in the evening to free up your morning, etc.

[SueEllen]

I've found the train to be much better than the motorway system though to be fair I'd normally be taking the M25

[b0redom]

Personally, I dont see what WFH has to do with it either. If you're WFH you shouldnt be seeing the kids more, you're supposed to be working and in a 6 month contract the extra time seeing the kids during the WFH period would be minimal.

If I didn't wfh in my current gig, I would have to leave the house at ~ 8am, and not be home until 6:30. As it is, I can drop the kids off at school, work 9-5:30, have an hour in comfort at lunch, and get an extra hour of family time before I would be home normally.

Of course you'll see the kids more as you'll be at home rather than sitting in your car!

[MaryPoppins]

Personally, I dont see what WFH has to do with it either. If you're WFH you shouldnt be seeing the kids more, you're supposed to be working and in a 6 month contract the extra time seeing the kids during the WFH period would be minimal.

I don't like WFH, and agree the working day should be used for that.

However, I'm assuming the OP makes the most of the fact that he/she is probably not leaving the house early/coming home late and is therefore able to see more of the kids during WFH days.

I WFH one day per week for that reason.