To think WFH permanently is a game changer?

[MiaMarshmallows]

For working parents as it saves on childcare costs as well as commuting etc?
DP been told he can wfh indefinitely and it's going to improve his lifestyle so much more. For everyone saying he will be outsourced, not a chance. He is very specialised in what he does and earns a very good wage for it.
One good thing to come out of all this at least.

No one gave a shit about office workers and commuters in the past, it's time we realise it's better for the economy to treat them better.

So you don't care about non office workers?

it's better for the economy if we think about all workers not just the ones that suit your own needs.

@thecatsthecats - oh, the irony of your being the “decision maker” in your office and then spouting that wfh suits you just fine and you can “move back to the rural area” you’re from.

How about people take turns at being “decision maker” ? I shouldn’t wonder if the 20-something graduate will order everyone to be back and compulsory after-work drinks on a Friday...

I love working from home but it doesn't save me any money - I still need the same childcare and the kids school/ nursery is near to my office so I go all that way anyway.

It will be good for some, not a great idea for others. I do worry about relationship building (strongly believe meeting “via zoom” does not build good long-term relations- can be fine if they already exist, not so great if they don’t) and teamwork. Some sectors have shown productivity down, others are fine or sometimes better.

Also think training may suffer. Online learning has shown training does need at least some personal interaction. There are lots of things you pick up by working closely with others during training period which you cannot replicate by email/call etc.

I don’t think it’s wonderful for everyone or every sector. It may be great for some. We also don’t know what the long-term ramifications may be for team-working, network building, training, professional development, even mental health and well-being. Working from behind a computer, not actually interacting with people in person for large parts of your day is not, I don’t think, going to be beneficial for everyone.

I strongly suspect long-term working from home is going to suit some sectors and some people far more than others.

[quote SomeRandomerOnBumsnet]@theleafandnotthetree

I think your post was so well put, it made me realise that my post made me sound like a right smug twat, and righty so

If only every poster was like you, people might start to have proper grown up conversations and debates instead of bun fights [/quote]
Thanks, you've made my day @SomeRandomerOnBumsnet. Less smug twat than 'person of good fortune who deserves every bit of it' by the tone of your responses to me.

Goldman Sachs and Barclays are coming out saying they are going to haul people back to the office, and realistically, where they go, other financial companies will follow. It's the bottom line. These companies pay a premium to ensure that their workers can live within commuting distance of - say - London, and they certainly aren't especially interested in assisting you in your childcare arrangements. HSBC has said they're cutting office space, but they're struggling anyway, and I suspect they're using this as a way to do what they were planning anyway. Ultimately, no matter how much people sitting on Mumsnet doing their laundry at 2pm in the afternoon while chatting to their kids insist that it has no impact on their work output, not unsurprisingly, it does. I personally would no go down the root of insisting to my boss that I somehow get all my work done in three hours around my chores and childcare, because in the economic mayhem that may be coming down the line, I'd expect to be fairly high up the list for the chop or being outsourced to India. Fundamentally, Goldmans may be a vampire squid on the face on the planet, but where they lead everyone else tends to follow. WFH has not worked for them, and they're pretty good at making things work for them, so it's v v v bold to assume that you're going to hang on for your job if you've moved to the Welsh hills, or wherever, and dumped the childcare.

How can you save on childcare ? As employers won't want people looking after their 2 year old whilst working

We don't all have 2 year olds! For example, I have a 12 year old with some additional needs, she needs childcare when I am WOHM, as does her 9 year old brother. But when I am WFM, they can come home from school and get on with homework and some tv and I can be around for them and then do an hour or 2 extra later on to catch up if needed.

I could see people end up in the same old same old for years leading to a real rut in development and young people ending up in low paid basic roles. Class divide bigger than ever. If you live in a difficult household or street/area it could be difficult.

My main concern is about confidentiality.

@pranct I suspect you're right about confidentiality. Once things start settling down, there'll be a few disasters with confidentiality and/or bank info, and people will start to see that problem. I'm not happy with handing over bank details to some unfortunate teenager sitting in their bedroom trying to process - I don't know - my house insurance.

@unmarkedbythat

That may be true but that doesn't mean those of us who can want a return to the old ways.

There doesn't have to be a one size fits all - as you say, there can't be.

All my friends who've started new jobs since this all began say it's awful. Their colleagues are blurs on Teams, and the idea of this continuing indefinitely is horrendous.

No one ever comes on these threads and says hands up, I've not been as productive as normal, and that just doesn't reflect the reality, plenty of people have been and will continue to be less effective from home. Not all by a long shot, but some for sure

Well it would be good if people were honest with themselves about how they work best, and employers were flexible and sensible about allowing people to play to their strengths. If someone works well at home, gets stuff done and doesn't need to be around for face to face meetings, they don't need to be in the office for the sake of it.

If someone is unproductive at home because they do the gardening instead, then they need to be in the office full time except for things like boilers being serviced etc.

There should be plenty of room for lots of options.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on this thread though - especially as I said above about working from home having to mean at home when there are so many other options.

I think it simply reinforces inequalities. Working from home is all very well if you are established in your career and your local area and have the space to work comfortably. It's very different if you are just starting out, just moved to a new area or are in a cramped flat or house. It's also not possible in a lot of the lower paid jobs like supermarks, retail, hospitality, care.... So the comfortably off will get to stay home while the less well off go out to work.

It's also going to reinforce the disadvantages men and women face. It's a myth that working from home is necessarily family friendly. For some families it is, but not so much for single parents (more likely to be women), parents of young children (where the care more often falls to women) or parents of disabled children (ditto). Just as most dads seem to expect the mum to do the school pick ups and cover illness/holiday care, so most dads will likely expect to work in peace while the mums juggle working and childcare. I work in academia, where it's well known that male academics produce many more articles over the summer then female academics do - because the women are juggling childcare so less productive.

I'm all for flexibility in working and will welcome being able to work at home more than I did before. But I don't think it's revolutionalising anything, it's just more of the same inequalities.

@Countrylane

Goldman Sachs and Barclays are coming out saying they are going to haul people back to the office, and realistically, where they go, other financial companies will follow. It's the bottom line. These companies pay a premium to ensure that their workers can live within commuting distance of - say - London, and they certainly aren't especially interested in assisting you in your childcare arrangements. HSBC has said they're cutting office space, but they're struggling anyway, and I suspect they're using this as a way to do what they were planning anyway. Ultimately, no matter how much people sitting on Mumsnet doing their laundry at 2pm in the afternoon while chatting to their kids insist that it has no impact on their work output, not unsurprisingly, it does. I personally would no go down the root of insisting to my boss that I somehow get all my work done in three hours around my chores and childcare, because in the economic mayhem that may be coming down the line, I'd expect to be fairly high up the list for the chop or being outsourced to India. Fundamentally, Goldmans may be a vampire squid on the face on the planet, but where they lead everyone else tends to follow. WFH has not worked for them, and they're pretty good at making things work for them, so it's v v v bold to assume that you're going to hang on for your job if you've moved to the Welsh hills, or wherever, and dumped the childcare.

Make no mistake, GS and Barclays et al, have a MASSIVE vested interest in keeping the worker bees in the building.

Commercial Real Estate is a heavyweight investment area. They don't want people WFH.

There is always an agenda for the ultra rich make no mistake!

There’s a difference between the training and induction stages of a job, where a degree of dynamism / in-person interaction is necessary, and settling into everyday working routines at your desk.

We also know for instance that introverts struggle with massive open-plan offices and that that’s not great for their mental health either.

For those who can work from home - yes I agree.

Its also a geographic equalizer. No longer will people have to move to major cities for certain jobs and those who live in more rural and remote areas will have more variety in career choice.

But I appreciate that not everyone has the space to wfh.

Considering all the people who couldn’t possibly do their job with their kids around, hence needing to take up key worker places in school I shouldn’t think childcare will reduce for many.

Seems to be a lot of hope on this thread to suit circumstance and preference at the current stage of peoples life, it feels like people are trying to wish it to happen by convincing others. MN is a very small section of society and it seems around 50/50 on here. My own perception is that it's probably closer to 75% wanting to get back to office and 90-95% of senior leaders/business owners wanting to get back so I just can't see there being the radical change people might think will happen.

I think things will rebound pretty quickly to how they were before. Companies might be less wedded to the idea that people have to spend 5 days a week in the office so you might get the odd day wfh but generally if the vaccine works and normal life returns I don't think there will be much change from where we were a year ago in terms of office based work.

Those that want to wfh on a regular basis, all you have to do is put a flexible working request in and see how it goes. If they say no then apply for a job where you can.

When I WFH, I absolutely accepted that my career would stall at that point, and would gradually begin to decline. For various reasons, that worked for me. And I suspect a lot of the people on Mumsnet have also reached a point in their career that they are happy to plateau at. And that does work for a few months, maybe even years. But look ahead... Do you want to be that person in five years' time who hasn't had the career development that comes by osmosis in the office? Or if you get axed, and you've got the same CV as the other applicant, but you're permanently going to be on Zoom, who do you think will get the job?

@tentative3

If only such thought had gone in to protecting the roles and livelihoods of miners and steelworkers as is being exhibited towards coffee shop employees.

De-centralising away from London/The South East is still long overdue and several brave attempts to move employment opportunities have been less than successful or required a sleight of hand to be deemed "successful".

Protecting the environment will come at a £££ cost and re-adjustment for many individuals. It seems it's just a matter of where the axe falls and who pays the price.

There is demand in the UK for similarly paid workers in other fields (healthcare being a prime example). I can't help thinking that todays coffee shop workers are better placed to adapt to other roles than your average miner or steelworker was back in the day. Whole communities collapsed financially in pit and steelworks locations.

There's a real chance here to make a difference to the environment through reducing domestic commuting (I have no skin in the game, I stand to make no savings at all financially).
Most people like to think of themselves as pro environmental improvements and yet we're now saying that it shouldn't come at the expenses of jobs in the coffee shop sector ?

@hayley037

Seems to be a lot of hope on this thread to suit circumstance and preference at the current stage of peoples life, it feels like people are trying to wish it to happen by convincing others. MN is a very small section of society and it seems around 50/50 on here. My own perception is that it's probably closer to 75% wanting to get back to office and 90-95% of senior leaders/business owners wanting to get back so I just can't see there being the radical change people might think will happen.

I think things will rebound pretty quickly to how they were before. Companies might be less wedded to the idea that people have to spend 5 days a week in the office so you might get the odd day wfh but generally if the vaccine works and normal life returns I don't think there will be much change from where we were a year ago in terms of office based work.

Those that want to wfh on a regular basis, all you have to do is put a flexible working request in and see how it goes. If they say no then apply for a job where you can.

Yes, I suppose there's probably no group on the planet keener on WFH than Mumsnet users!

Weird... my perception is the majority on MN is against working from home.

I work with people who definitely aren't the typical MN demographic - overwhelmingly men without childcare responsibilities. Of our team of 50, only four used the office when it was reopened after the first lockdown. The other 46 continued to work from home.

Its also a geographic equalizer. No longer will people have to move to major cities for certain jobs and those who live in more rural and remote areas will have more variety in career choice.

Depends on the role but two of the biggest industries in London - Banking and Media, they'll have people back in the office as soon as it's feasibly allowed I would imagine.

I work for a media company. We lost work to our rivals in the summer by choosing not to go back to the office when it was allowed, they went back and produced far better pitches and work that we could by trying to organise everything remotely.

I think because it's gone on so long there may be more of a push to return to the old ways whereas if normality had returned last yr I think we would see more flexibility continuing.