Government should advise 'work from home if you can' - plain common sense

[swabthenose]

I'm not talking about furlough, or people who are unable to do their jobs from home. I'm talking about office jobs where people have successfully worked from home for months and months with no decrease (and some increase due to no commute) in productivity. Surely it's plain fucking common sense for the government to say 'work from home if you can' and stop encouraging people back to offices?!

All this talk of a lockdown except offices and schools - why offices?! Why is the government so determined to keep all the worker bees in the group working environment when it's not necessary? Yes I know, save the sandwich shops, but tbh if people are working from home then local businesses are going to get a boost instead AND the public transport will be less crowded. Home working at least part of the time is the future, and trying to swim against the tide during a global pandemic seems pretty dim even for our shitshow of a government.

May not

As a parent, I physically couldn't go back to the office.

We got to day 7 before the middle child started coughing. 48h to procure a test, 24h for it to arrive, its meant to be collected by courier today (and I expect the whole of next week for the results). So we'll be off 10 days instead of 14.

No way I could work out of the house when testing is in such a bad way.

There is no reason for anyone who can work from home effectively to go in at all - it annoys me that the gov keeps playing into this line that somehow working from home isn't actual working and going to the office is 'going back to work' My work luckily has no intention of requiring anyone to come into the office for the foreseeable.

The best thing London can do, and possibly the reason our cases are relatively low, is to stay at home because there are so many knowledge-based jobs here where WFH is perfectly effective, and going on the tube and encountering dozens of extra contacts per day seems like madness in that case.

I support this as long is it doesn't impact on the service being provided. There's a thread running at the moment about "because of covid" being inexplicably used to justify poor customer service.

Firms who usually take on trainees (such as accountancy/audit practices) haven't taken them on this Autumn, because they can't train them, as training is usually "on the job" in their own, or client's offices

Big generalisation. My law firm has taken on trainees as usual, and as far as I can tell they are doing fine. I think they are in the office 1-2 days a week and WFH the rest.

@Viciouslybashed

Seems like a sensible thing to me, going back because that's how things always used to be done is just pointless.

I strongly agree. This is a revolution in working practices.

@Womencanlift

That’s fine if you have the luxury of space to wfh long term. But a large proportion of people are still working from their bed/sofa/kitchen stool which is not feasible long term. There are reasons why people go through assessments in work to make sure their desk is set up correctly to avoid long term injuries.

I have heard people in here say oh just buy a desk, make an office, build an extension, buy a new house like it’s the easiest thing to do. Honestly people live in a different world.

And then there are the hundreds of thousands who live alone and now their whole life (work and personal) is in 4 walls. Now with the rule of 6 and even more restrictions coming in those 4 walls are coming closer in every single day.

There is more to health than bloody Covid and more things that can kill you than sitting in an office or travelling on public transport

This!!

I don't feel like the op is demanding people that can't work comfortably or well at home should HAVE to but that actually if you can, you work well and find it a productive experience then it is to be encouraged.
Personally I can't wfh but also know I would not be v self motivated as I am rubbish and procrastinate like you would not believe 😂

@LyndaLaHughes

What people are forgetting is that, if you can do your job easily from home in say London, then someone can do your job at a vast reduction of the cost from home in say India. This is a dangerous consequence of everyone working from home. Why would an employer pay a London salary to someone if they don't need to? People need to be very careful about pushing working from home for everyone as it has dangerous implications and it's not just the death of the ancillary businesses and services in city centre hubs.

This isn't true.

I'm valuable because of my skills, experience, strategic mind, contacts etc - all of which are just as apparent through Teams / Skype. I'm not less valuable as an individual because I'm not schlepping into an office daily.

@roarfeckingroarr

I agree with you in that I feel no threat right now. I am experienced and well established and have a broad network under my belt.

I don't think you and I will suffer in the short term, but our value WILL gradually be eroded as we are diluted by a much wider pool to choose from.

Roar it may not be true for you but I'm afraid it is true. It is already happening. Certainly for replacement and new roles. Especially for companies who already employ those abroad in small numbers.

many parents are using this opportunity to not pay for childcare as they say they can do it themselves and work

I don't know anyone doing this, everyone I know was absolutely ecstatic when childcare reopened, and childminders and nurseries around here are full. If there's another lockdown and family members cannot be used some might, but childcare is too expensive for some and that arrangement usually works, they shouldn't lose their jobs because they're not swimming in money.

I don't mind WFH, I also don't mind going into the office, but it makes sense as an easy way to reduce contact. There is someone in the team who is struggling without social contact as they live alone, and they've been going in when they want and someone else will usually be in, I go in a few times a week. A lot of the positives of being in the office such as collaborative working, face to face meetings, training etc aren't happening at the moment anyway. Those struggling should be supported, but it makes so much sense to change the advice.

Outsourcing will happen or it won't, I think more jobs going remote it will open competition nationally which is great for those away from city hubs; but I do think wages etc will be different (lower) without a geographical tie amongst the opportunity for people. I do think once things are 'normal' again though people will head back to the office in a lot of cases, at least part time. And outsourcing globally is really challenging. Not saying it won't happen, but when it's been done before it actually hasn't provided the savings predicted, and a lot has since been brought back.

100% agree. If you stood for govt I would elect you. It's just common sense to keep the people who can stay at home with zero consequences at home! Every interaction is an increase in the transmission rate. It's very very simply maths.

For people saying WFH will topple the economy with a flood of new workers from India....it may well reduce wage rates and destabilise London a little over the medium term, but wages ARE artificially inflated in London, as are rents. It's an economy constructed on this bubble of location, and it's not a good thing. Loads of people live in London because they have to....why should we have to live in an overgrown city paying exorbitant rates? We could go LIVE in India ourselves if we wanted to! And help a sandwich shop in India and equalise a lot of the global equality. It's a good thing for the world!!

We could go LIVE in India ourselves if we wanted to! And help a sandwich shop in India and equalise a lot of the global equality. It's a good thing for the world!!

Only as long as you were happy to give up the UK welfare state and NHS, which rely on various forms of taxation from UK taxpayers to function.

@jcurve, If you don't live in the UK, you don't need the NHS! You pay into a system in the country in which you live. The NHS only has to pay for the people living there. If I move to India, it makes not a jot of difference to the NHS. I am costing them zero. If you mean I am taking a job away from someone who lives and therefore pays taxes in the UK, well yes. But equally a UK resident could get a New York job, or a silicon valley job in this model, and pay lots and lots of tax into the NHS. I think what a lot of people are really arguing is, oh Jesus, there is a risk that the UK won't be rich any more and India will take a chunk of our wealth. But I'd argue at a global level, having India a little less poor and us a little less rich is no bad thing.

I am hearing of it loads, people wfh with kids there. Both in terms of nursery age and especially school aged kids. Many saying that they are saving a fortune in wraparound costs as they can work successfully from home with their 6 year old there too. Kind of surprised employers allow it. Not to mention the effect it has on the childcare industry.

A PP asked why people / companies need to be spoon fed and that's it, isn't it? We are all adults capable of having reasonable conversations with our bosses. If WFH is working for you, and working for the company, it should be really straightforward to say that's the plan for you for the foreseeable future. If WFH is not good for you, you don't have the space, or your mental health is suffering, or whatever it may be, work should be finding ways to help you be safe at the office.

When I took on this job, I wanted to WFH at least one day a week and my boss felt I needed to get established first, which felt reasonable to me. A few months in, COVID sent us all home. I'm in the same number of meetings, I take the same number of phone calls, and I do my job to the same level. Currently I'm in the office half the time, on a rota basis with the team so we can Socially Distance.

The nature of my husband's work means he has gone back to the office full time but only two teams are in that situation, everyone else in the company is still WFH.

There are ways to make it work for employers and employees, and having the government issue an edict takes that adult discussion away from us.

YANBU but I think there needs to be the option for staff to work in offices or at home, whichever suits their mental health and productivity best. Not everyone has enjoyed WFH this past six months.

Totally agree that this needs to be a combination of lots of micro decisions within each company. I think these blanket rules are unhelpful. The OP's message is the right one - if you can, you should stay home. And equally, if you can't, you don't have to! I just don't see the need to have people who work from home perfectly well being added to the mix during a pandemic. It is absolutely unnecessary risk. If a person in the civil service can keep off public transport, save money and pick up their child from school while still doing a great job, more power to them!!

Yet when they get home, their child will still need looking after.
I don't think you can wfh and do childcare at the same time successfully. One will suffer.

I agree with OP, if you can, stay at home. If not, for whatever reason, the office space should be made available with the required safety measures. Entirely reasonable.

However, our esteemed government appears to be adding some layers of obligation including 'saving jobs' for the coffee shops and commercial landlords.

I can't help but contrast their approach to that to the miners when their industry hit the buffers.

100% agree. If you stood for govt I would elect you. It's just common sense to keep the people who can stay at home with zero consequences at home! Every interaction is an increase in the transmission rate. It's very very simply maths.

It is very very simple maths. And thank you for your vote - sadly as a habitual truth-teller I’m completely unsuitable for government office.

I hope Boris is bright enough to announce this tomorrow but he won’t be. He’ll close the pubs an hour early and pretend everyone won’t go back to each other’s houses instead.

Well @swabthenose, I reckon someone in government was listening to you the other day, given the advice has now changed!
www.bbc.com/news/uk-54247372
I for one am glad. It really is such a small shift in the message that will give a lot of people the option to challenge their employer on why exactly they need to be back in the office when they have been carrying on perfectly well from home, as well as making safe space for those who can't wfh or find it difficult.

I agree it's sensible advice. They should leave it as is now, until the spring, when hopefully numbers will be low and people can start venturing back.

I was meant to be going into the office for the first time tomorrow - probably won't bother now.