If you can do your job from home then it can be done from India...

[Bewareoftheblob]

This is what my brother has been told by his employers. He works in a small office in a city centre and can work remotely. He admits that their efficiency, especially in terms of the quality of customer service, has been compromised by the team working from home.

They've all been told to go back to the office from mid September, which he is reluctant to do, mainly because he dislikes the commute and has enjoyed being at home with his wife and toddler.

When he (and, I think, some other team members) requested an extension to working from home, they were told in no uncertain terms to get back in to the office, and that they should be wary because 'if you can do your job from home, it can probably be done from India', which my brother has taken as a threat of redundancy.

They were also asked if they didn't feel guilty about the impact they were having on the economy and other people's livelihood - I assume they meant transport/Costa/Pret etc. They were asked to have more of a community spirit. It's a pretty informal place, not very 'corporate' which is why I assume it's been worded in this way!

What do you think? I'm torn to be honest, I totally understand why my brother wants to work from home, but whilst I don't think his company expressed themselves very well, I can see their point too.

So I suppose it's more are they being unreasonable rather than am I being unreasonable!

I’m looking forward to universal basic income when there aren’t any jobs left. No more employer to be beholden to.

@Mintychoc1

I find these attitudes so annoying. As someone who has worked (not at home) throughout, it’s really irritating hearing people whining about having to go back to work. Life isn’t all about baking banana bread and crocheting bloody rainbows.

Agree 100%. I loathed working from home. I love the routine of the commute and cracking on with work in a properly set up and equipped office, and looking forward to coming home in the evening for my personal time.

At the end of the day it is not a great way for his employers to put it,but if work want you back you need to go back or quit.

it's up to each individual business to decide where and how they want their employees to work. Most reasonable employers will listen and engage with their workforce but ultimately if your company wants you in the office then you should go in.

Automation is coming for your job is the long term, whether or not you go back to the office.

They were also asked if they didn't feel guilty about the impact they were having on the economy and other people's livelihood - I assume they meant transport/Costa/Pret etc. They were asked to have more of a community spirit.

People working from home and having a better quality of life, easier access to their local high street might very well be what is needed to save the economy and other people's livehood lets' be honest.

@ALLIS0N

Conversely I know a lot of people ( mostly women ) in professional jobs ( mostly solicitors and accountants ) who have used lockdown to prove to their employers that they can be very effective working from home. So they have been told they can keep doing so if they want until early next year, when it will be reviewed.

Of course they all have the space at home , good IT skills and childcare now back, so very different from the start of lockdown.

But there've been people WFH for decades - like those you know, who've "Proved" they can be just as effective. We had a local HM Inspector of Taxes back in the 80s who worked from home, she even had a separate works phone line installed so taxpayers/accountants had a direct line to her. Same with an accountancy practice I worked at, we had an accounts clerk who came in one morning per week to bring back the carrier bags of books she'd worked on and take a car boot full of new carrier bags of books to take back home with her. She'd previously worked full time in the office, but had asked for a trial period of WFH and proved herself so it became permanent. It's nothing new.

@BrieAndChilli

There is an interwoven web of dependency across the whole of the economy. So no-one currently cares about the coffee shop workers, suit tailors who’s main business is London’s city business men, Uber drivers ferrying business people to meetings, sandwich caterers, newspaper stands, etc etc who are losing business and jobs left right and centre. But in a few months these jobless many will not be buying insurance or buying new houses and getting mortgages, won’t be investing money in pensions or shares or isa’s then all those bankers and lawyers will have much less work to do and there will be redundancies aplenty, wonder if they will be pushing for everyone to go back to offices then!’!?!

This, exactly.

This is why I thought the 'McJobs' comment was cruel but had a point. All of the people on a low or minimum wage will be the ones made redundant in a few weeks time, but no one seems to give a shit about that.

The ONE positive thing of the pandemic is for businesses to wake up and realise it's perfectly possible for MANY workers to work just as efficiently, if not more, from more.

Some people can't work from home.
Some people can't work 9 to 5 either and have to do night shifts.

Most businesses still managed to stick to business hours. It's called progress, and it's here to stay. If people wanted to relocate to India, they would have done so. Many who have done in the past have had to backtrack as it didn't work out so well.

As long as you can work from home, there's absolutely no valid reason to go back to an office and businesses have finally understood it's cheaper and more efficient to promote WFH.

If the business cannot function, of course you have no choice.

So no-one currently cares about the coffee shop workers, suit tailors who’s main business is London’s city business men, Uber drivers ferrying business people to meetings, sandwich caterers, newspaper stands, etc etc who are losing business and jobs left right and centre.

But no one cares about the coffee shop workers near school , gyms, in high streets where no one had time to go. Some businesses might have to move, better than all the ones local to you having to close, isn't it?

*to add: you earn so little as a coffee shop worker, your lifestyle will improve hugely if you can work locally, save on transport cost and time to do the same job...

If jobs aren't going well from home the company are not being unreasonable in getting people back in. I think there is more of a dilemma when companies have admitted that productivity has surged and they have exceed targets. This is certainly true in my tech areas.

Personally I put this down to being able to concentrate better in a quiet environment and get on with things rather than having constant distractions at work.

But no one cares about the coffee shop workers near school , gyms, in high streets where no one had time to go.

Not a very smart move to open a coffee shop in a location 'where no one had time to go'.

If staff had been just as productive at home as in the office, he'd have a case but if work is suffering then he should get his butt back in the office

I think the bluster around India is an idle threat as they feel your brother is taking the piss by not going back knowing productivity is down. It isn't simple to move roles overseas and has its own drawbacks even if staff costs are cheaper.

If the productivity/responsiveness is down, than I can't say I'd blame the company. Also, how replaceable people are depends on specific skills etc. - not all WFH staff can be replaced by someone in another country (time zones, language and specific expertise to consider).

Our company switched to 100% WFH in March and we're not planning to open offices any time soon nor replace our staff because productivity and responsiveness went up, our teams have been breaking all-time records 3m in a row and our work requires very specific expertise so a staffer we have in NYC or London can't be easily replaced by one in India, for example. However, as a company we also went out of our way to accommodate our staff to do work effectively - including flexi hours (a lot of them have children/elderly dependants) and therapy support for those struggling.

I disagree.

I think plenty of jobs can be down from home predominantly and not outsourced.

My friend who works for CPS worked 3/5 from home before this and obviously 5/5 during this.

By cutting down the office commute twice a week and holding online meetings instead of travelling to London occasionally has been more productive. She has been told rather than fixed timescale to WFH unless she needs to physically be elsewhere or a meeting cannot be remote.

I also have left companies who've outsourced. I want someone who is able to understand the complexities of the English language when I need help and support. That's not a dig at those with the jobs but all too many times there has been a language barrier which affects my experience of a consumer.

I think companies should look at combination working. It seems quite effective.

Obviously some jobs cannot be done from home but if productivity doesn't differ then save money on office space on on decent workforce.

Not a very smart move to open a coffee shop in a location 'where no one had time to go'.

what a stupid comment, shops who are closing on your local high street were profitable at one point, that's why they were there and some had been for decades.

[quote Bewareoftheblob]@Newjeansrippedjeans I think it's more that customer service is not up to standard. They're getting complaints about responses to customers not being as timely/efficient as they used to be.[/quote]
Which is absolutely the case with many firms.

Does he work for a bank? Because they've been a nightmare. Ditto insurance.

@SantaClaritaDiet

*to add: you earn so little as a coffee shop worker, your lifestyle will improve hugely if you can work locally, save on transport cost and time to do the same job...

What about if you work in HR for a company that sees its fortunes fail because all the low earning coffee shop workers no longer need the product it supplies, and the company therefore doesn't need as many people in HR?

as a slight aside, imho, the whole WFH is still a bit of a novelty and the long term impacts are yet to be known.

At the start of lockdown I suspect that most of individuals and companies adopted a kind of 'survival' mode. Just get through today. Just get through this week. Just get through the month...

Then some firms found that it was working okay and some have already made decisions about having lots of staff WFH permanently or most of the time. I actually think that some of them will regret doing so.

Day-to-day stuff is fine when WFH. Change activity, building relationships (especially with new staff or new clients), project work and many other elements still require face-to-face human interaction - not just in a scheduled meeting, but over the course of incidental and unplanned conversations and correspondence. WFH still has a long way to go replicate that.

I also suspect that the WFH mantra is being driven mainly by those either with young children or those nearer the end of their career than the beginning of it. I don't mind WFH, but I'm in my mid fifties so have already done plenty of years in the office and have experienced all the highs and lows, successes and failures, laughter and tears, that come with that. I feel very sorry for the youngsters whose work experience (if they are lucky to have a job at all) will mainly consist of being at a kitchen table staring at a laptop all day while enduring a succession of pointless and annoying zoom calls.

Christmas parties are going to be shit.

I pity the folk fighting for jobs while business decide how best to relocate their services.

What is their reason for not working as well from home?

I work for a company that was set up so that most of us have always worked remotely (including the boss) and while there are some specific issues that come with us all not being in the same place, we are all professionals with skills in our specific areas of work and everything gets done very well remotely.

Customer service tends to often get outsourced but mainly by bigger companies that don't really care about it because they do just fine even if they have lots of unhappy customers (think of mobile phone providers, utility companies, Amazon...). Smaller businesses though need customer service to be staffed by real people who don't follow scripts and are able to offer genuinely good service.

what a stupid comment, shops who are closing on your local high street were profitable at one point, that's why they were there and some had been for decades.

High street shops have closed mainly due to the competition from online shopping and out of town centres, not because 'no one had time' to go there.

In any case, if the move to WFH becomes long-term (I'm not convinced) it's not just Costa or Cafe Nero that will suffer, but also - as pointed out above - all the cleaners, taxi drivers, newsagents, maintanance workers, canteen workers etc. Not saying it's any individual's duty to keep the above in work, but should WFH become the norm, there wil be a major economic impact that will affect everyone sooner or later.

Not everybody will benefit from the new way of life and work, it takes time to reshuffle and adapt, but it's happening and it's a very good thing.

There are a lot more who will benefit from the changes and won't even question it once it is becoming normal.

Workers have been pleading for flexible work for years, at least something good is coming of that pandemic! No one has ever expected an air pilot or a nurse to work from home, we KNOW some jobs have to be done in specific places.

but should WFH become the norm, there wil be a major economic impact that will affect everyone sooner or later.

balanced by the massive boost for industries who will benefit and a better quality of life. It's call a winner in my book.