To hate the Daily Mail and its anti WFH vendetta

I’m sure all civil servants are setup to take calls from home. It took a few days to switch our call centre to home working. So whatever the reason they aren’t answering your call has nothing to do with them working at home. Our staff do more work at home, their stats are a bit lower on office days (we do 40% and so do most of government, or more) as they are encouraged to ‘collaborate’. Some local authorities haven’t returned to the office at all, but again I don’t think it has any bearing on output of work. Like everything you’ll get a few chancers who want to sit and watch Netflix but the vast majority of people who WFH on a regular basis do just as much (if not more) work than they’d do in the office. No travel time, no chats in the kitchen, many work a longer day as don’t have to factor in cancelled or delayed trains to their day. I think those against it have no idea really

James Whale in the Daily Express had a similar article a couple of weeks ago, saying that more HMRC employees are now WFH than at the height of the pandemic. Really? When every single office was closed. That's impossible.
He was also banging on about no one being available to answer the phone because people are doing the school run and hanging out washing. He clearly doesn't understand how call centres work and how heavily monitored the advisors are. Every single minute has to be accounted for.
We're required to be in the office at least 3 days a week and while some people stretch that a bit it's mostly observed. There are stats pulled for each department weekly and questions are asked if you haven't met your quota.
It really pisses me off especially since he probably claimed on several of the covid initiatives that the very same HMRC workers processed for him, while WFH, to make sure he could maintain his cushy lifestyle.

It's not just the Daily Heil, it's the Times as well. They are obviously very worried about their investments in offices. I am not sure why - most people are back 2-3 days a week so it's not as if the offices are empty.

Also people don't like anything that helps women or people with or caring for people with health conditions or disabilities.

Don’t read the articles. Seriously clicking on them gives them data which means their readers like those articles. I’m a civil servant, I don’t think anyone realistically works from a beach as you can’t even see your screen for a start! I tried Garden working in covid and it didn’t work. The DM just like to whip the general public into hysteria

We need ulez apparently to help the environment, but people working from home, keeping them off the road… absolutely not! I would go as far to say, if a company can function with employees wfh, then they have a responsibility to allow them to. Remember how clear the roads were, and how cheap the fuel was, in lockdown.

@Savoury "Like all good things, WFH is being ruined by a small number of chancers and a general air of expectation which is not a good look"

No it isn't. It's being deliberately ruined by the Tories because of their vested interest in the property industry.

That's not WFH causing that though, it is not having effective systems or enough staff to deal with demand. If there were double the trained staff to manage the incoming calls then it wouldn't matter where they were working from would it?

Lloyds have also wrapped up changes in working patterns and hours with the hybrid work / come in 2 days a week rule.

People who work part time longer days eg 8-5 8h days are being told to either do 7h for 4 days a week for a pay cut or increase to 7h for 5 days, but the company still want flexibility to ask for cover on early and later start and finish times ie 8-4, 10-6, etc so it’s not like they are only open 9-5. Really hard hitting on part timers who have had a pattern in place, often for years. Union is fighting it.

I don’t like the Daily Mail but do think that WFH is causing lots of issues. I can’t speak to anyone in the Tax Office, despite phoning them repeatedly for the last 3 months. I emailed them in April about an issue and finally had a letter of acknowledgment last Friday, almost 4 months after sending them a query. It remains unresolved and they owe me some money. Their workers need to get themselves back to the office!

DH is public sector and they're moving premises soon as they lease their current office. The new office they're moving to only has capacity for two thirds of the staff so hybrid working is not only available, it's encouraged. He got an email just this morning asking what his preferred work pattern is and saying that he can WFH a minimum of two days a week if he so chooses. He's going to do two in the office, two at home and wildcard the other day depending on operational needs. Some people in his team want to do every day at home and only go into the office when necessary, others want to work solely from the office, others are doing a mix of the two.

This level of flexibility benefits the workplace because it makes it more accessible to employees who are facing barriers to work. It supports a better home-life balance and of supports better mental health by placing control into the employees' hands.

Is it the Daily Mail only?
The FT has an article about banks trying to get staff in, including Lloyds who are giving free food to entice workers in twice a week.
Like all good things, WFH is being ruined by a small number of chancers and a general air of expectation which is not a good look.

I benefit from hybrid working (and did so before the pandemic tbh) but full time WFH does result in a loss of certain benefits that office based collaboration brings. As ever there is a balance.

The "hard working" narrative really pisses me off. They were only able to achieve their lifestyles by moving to a debt based economy. Essentially, they created growth and prosperity for themselves by leveraging the labour of future generations.

Increased wfh is bad for the newspaper industry in general, because so many commuters bought papers as part of their routine, something to do on the train or bus. I interpret all coverage with this in mind.

Not to mention retiring at 60 or 65, instead of the ever-moving retirement goalposts we have nowadays.

I'm willing to bet many DM journalists work remotely.

Of course they do. Most Daily Mail journalists are bright people and don’t write what they actually believe - it’s all based on what will get clicks from riling up their readership base. Same with Telegraph etc - what will wind up X and get them to click this article?

I think another reason the DM hates WFH is that it makes it easier for women to be something other than their two pillars of motherhood - the SAHM or the full on high flying career woman. Their journalism can't cope with that.

And young people lose out on the social aspect of work, which is also really important. The spontaneous Friday night pub outing after a bad week is so helpful.

I wish people who cited this as a benefit would also acknowledge how many people it disadvantaged.

The DM is a hate-filled rag and is always whipping up a storm against some group or another.

And they're talking bollocks, too. The councils here have made significant savings in premises since moving to hybrid working, as they need a lot less office space and are selling/leasing some of their buildings. The organisation I work for (3rd sector, but running services commissioned by NHS/ASC) has leased a quarter of the space at its head office.

I can't speak for the whole organisation, but my team is now managing a caseload double its pre-Covid size, and with no loss of performance. A job that would have taken my whole 6-hour day pre-Covid and involved a 90-mile round trip can now be done in a couple of hours from home.

And the reduction in traffic because of WFH and hybrid working can only be a good thing.

I think a lot of the anti-WFH sentiment comes from those who have financial interests in commercial property that is now half empty, tbh.

Isn't that the propaganda piece from the Tax Dodgers Alliance? I'll start giving more than a nanosecond of thought to their opinions when their owners start paying tax in the UK.

It's so transparent that all the newspapers revel in spreading fear and causing intergenerational wars of opinion. Retired people do tend to be more susceptible to it as they are the ones who will buy their paper as part of their routine and absorb every word. It's often their only link to the wider world if they are not mixing with working people or kids. I've seen it with my grandparents how reasonable they used to be and how intolerant they have become.

I hate the DM, but kind of agree about WFH.

Every employment contract should be about a trade of skills and effort for money and conditions, so if you are so good that your employer still wants you if you WFH, fair enough. However, WFH is not the same as being in the office and has many negatives from an employer’s perspective.

The downside is most apparent for young people at the start of their career. You just can’t informally mentor over Teams effectively. And young people lose out on the social aspect of work, which is also really important. The spontaneous Friday night pub outing after a bad week is so helpful.

I do think some flexibility in being able to work from home sometimes is important, especially to facilitate childcare issues, and allows many able people to work who couldn’t if it was 100% office based.

Offices were invented for a reason and the internet has only partially changed this.

I think it's fairly clear where this is heading.

The Tory party receives a lot of money from the property industry, which is for obvious reasons, very anti WFH. Hence the Mail's stance on the subject.

Maybe don't read it and just get on with your life