To think that WFH will divide the rich/poor more

[PipedownSue]

There's no denying that most WFH roles tend to be higher paid in comparison to ones where you have to be in a set work place. Just looking at my friends, waitress, HCA, admin assistant, receptionist, retail roles are all dependent on being in a workplace rather than at home. My role allows some home working (25%) whilst my manager does more like 75% at home because our roles differ.
The problem I see with this is that through the pandemic those who have had to work outside the home have been pushed to the limit. Food retailers like my DP have been working flat out, at one point he said that every week was like December because of how busy they were (with restaurants and pubs shut.) I have been working throughout and have worked 50 hour weeks covering for staff absences, those who are shielding, isolating etc. In the NHS we are constantly playing catch up and now most of my colleagues are working longer hours, working to cover colleagues who have left and haven't been replaced.
This isn't a woe is me post but if you compare lower paid roles where the employee continues to pay for wraparound childcare, public transport or car costs, parking, food in the workplace etc to those where someone is on full pay WFH with the added benefits of more time at home to clean, cook, exercise, family time etc. I just a society made up of depressed, burned out, unhealthy, poor people struggling with stagnant wages and an increase in cost of living and those who are well off, happy, healthy and get to live in a little bubble of privilege. Like it is now, but worse!

Staying safe at home is definitely a privilege.

Having said that it isn't all you crack it up to be for many. Many folks wfh I think are now working longer hours and of course don't have the benefit of a clear delineation between home and work. It's not all it's cracked up to be.

However fundamentally you are right. There is privilege in having the option to stay home and order in whatever you need.

I agree it will in a lot of cases greater the divide.There will be some exceptions (eg senior doctors/teachers etc not WFH as their jobs need them to be present, obviously exceptions to this as well eg GPs going more telephone based for appointments).

That may be the case for some people WFH but I've found with WFH that it is more like living in the office. I was doing a big transaction earlier this year and had to get sign off from my boss to turn my phone and computer off between midnight and 5am. I regularly woke up to 100plus urgent emails which had come in through the night. It has calmed down a little bit now, but its common to have teams calls late into the evening.

I'd quite like to go back to the office and be able to turn my PC off at 6.30 and know that was it for the night.

Not sure that WFH is always best though (my waist line tells me otherwise!). No work/home balance could be an issue.

@yoyo1234 I work with doctors, they get to work from home if they don't miss their clinics.

Definitely isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Working around the clock (early mornings, evenings and weekends), house is a tip as we’ve no free time due to work. Absolutely not swanning around loving life. Covering for colleagues who’ve had issues with childcare (not a criticism just a fact) as well so it’s relentless. Some people might be having a great time but please don’t tar all the home workers as somehow working very little or the bare minimum.

This is true but I'm seeing companies offering lower pay on wfh roles. When you are not location based, you can be living in an expensive home counties location but be competing against someone living in a much cheaper part of the country who is happy to accept lower pay. in time as people will factor this stuff in to where they choose to live etc, but atm its worrying as I have a big mortgage and it wouldnt be ideal if pay fell in my sector.

I agree. Also wfh is pleasant if you have a nice home, office, somewhere different to sit for lunch etc. For the millions of people in flat shares, horrible houses, loud awful neighbours, abusive relationships etc it’s awful. I think the vast majority of people who don’t have hideous commutes and are fairly sociable will want to go back into the office at least part time anyway.

Working from home is great but every week there's a least one post of someone who's partner is working from home and they can't cope, because their home is made to feel like a workplace.
I'm fortunate in that I do have a spare room to work in, and I do love the time and money saved by commuting, but there was outcry at the start of homeworking that many people hated it and thought that being isolated from their colleagues had a detrimental impact. On the other hand, you have people who had been asking for homeworking for years to manage chronic medical conditions, childcare etc and had been declined, but the pandemic has showed us we can facilitate it.
Its good to have options, and I think if anything workplaces that can't facilitate home working need more rigid policies to safeguard their employees from burnout.

@Missfelipe i definitely didn't say that wfh'ers aren't working. I said that they have essentially gained free time by not having a commute. Plus stayed on the same money. No one makes you log on late at night or at the weekends. Retail workers average 50 plus hours a week and have someone who monitors their twenty minute unpaid lunch break.

Whilst I agree in part, not all WFH jobs are senior or well paid, nor is WFH easy! I work in a role which is less than the UK average and have worked none stop. It’s been awful. I have never been this busy and I’ve had to attempt to balance WFH and childcare.

As others have said home life blurs into work life and there’s no leaving work decompression so to speak.

Aside from saving on fuel there’s not really been a benefit to WFH, though I know others have had an easier ride.

Also op people do have a choice. The fact that you can wfh in certain jobs will start to filter into people's career decisions, and the surplus of people keen to get those wfh jobs will lower the pay, while retail and other location based jobs will find it harder to attract staff which will in turn push up pay.

I work in HE. Most of us in professional services are wfh. Yesterday I visited campus and the reception staff were telling me how they have been in most of the time. They are paid half what I earn. It is not equal

@pipedownsue as said "obviously exceptions to this as well....".

I think you’re right on the financial side of things, having the ability to work from home definitely means that you can save money on food, travel, childcare, etc.

I’m not so sure that those WFH are any less burned out though. Most of my friends are in professional jobs working from home and have had the most stressful year, working long hours, with blurred boundaries between home and work, struggling to balance home-schooling and your job. Not actually going out to work can be really isolating too.

I think long term many of those in professional jobs will benefit from having the ability to blend home and office working, being forced to work fully at home for the last year has been a bit shit though tbh.

Yes, it will.

It will also set women back.

I don’t think that WFH is necessarily higher paid. Doctors can’t wfh. Solicitors have to meet clients and go to court. Architects and designers have to be on site. Chefs have to be in restaurants.

I do think that most jobs have a component that can be done at home and other tasks that need to be done in the workplace. So in the long term we may see workers being partially based at home and coming to the workplace on a part time basis to do essential tasks.

@Kanitawa

I don’t think that WFH is necessarily higher paid. Doctors can’t wfh. Solicitors have to meet clients and go to court. Architects and designers have to be on site. Chefs have to be in restaurants.

I do think that most jobs have a component that can be done at home and other tasks that need to be done in the workplace. So in the long term we may see workers being partially based at home and coming to the workplace on a part time basis to do essential tasks.

I work for a law firm and everyone has worked from home for over a year. No-one sees a client face-to-face and the vast majority of hearings (which aren’t all that common) are by video conference or telephone.

Wfh people are still working and still have to have childcare

I might agree with you howeve I don’t agree with

“ Food retailers like my DP have been working flat out, at one point he said that every week was like December because of how busy they were (with restaurants and pubs shut.) I have been working throughout and have worked 50 hour weeks c”

Do you really think that many of us that have wfh throughout the pandemic haven’t worked flat out ? During November I was doing 60h weeks , many days I’m doing more than my office hours because there is work and I can do some so why not. Many roles (finance related ones for example ) have had more work than ever helping companies set forlogh etc , I don’t think just because you’re wfh you’re having it easier because it’s not the case

Would your proposal for this be that everyone goes back to their offices so that x that works in the cafe doesn’t feel they earn less? Because it won’t make a big difference to their feeling , they’ll know that some roles will always be paid better than theirs.

Yep. Will also have to pay more for their public transport commute as fares are right down.

I do see some truth in what you say OP - though there are some exceptions. Some people may have office based jobs but poor wfh conditions - eg shared house so only bedroom to work and live in; 1 bed place with baby at home all the time.

Perhaps wfh jobs will become more desirable, which will increase competition and reduce wages. Whereas, perhaps due to the disadvantages, people may leave tough jobs like nursing, hca, hospitality. Maybe we will pay them more then? I don’t know.

I agree on the financial side. My colleague returned from maternity leave during the first lockdown and pays £600 per month for part-time childcare at the moment. If we go back to the office full time it will be £1300 a month out of her £1600 a month wages (salary of around £25k a year).

I absolutely agree in part. I have said from the start of this that we have relied on lower paid workers to keep us going. However I work from home and hate it. DH is a stay at home dad meaning there are kids here whilst I'm trying to work which makes it impossible. We have one wage which means that whilst it's a decent wage we still don't have a lot of money and are stuck in a 2 bed flat with no space for me to work. Also the job I do involves working with vulnerable people meaning I often get shouted and sworn at over the phone whilst in my own home. It's horrible.

I don't feel I can ever switch off and am currently working (yes taking a break to post this!) as part of my day was taken up with an ill 4 year old who wanted his mum but normally would have had to just put up with his dad!

My work has decided we will be staying wfh rather than going back to the office and I'm sure it's great for those with space or who miss out on the commute but those of us without space really struggle.

I think you're right, OP, that there is a wfh split and lower paid workers are less likely to be able to wfh.

But what I think many people fail to understand is that wfh will ultimately be bad for their careers, at least if they do it the whole time (2-3 days a week might be ok). To progress in many highly paid/qualified fields (law, finance etc.) you need the visibility that comes from being in the office and the personal links and trust that are built from meeting colleagues and clients in person. I know that many people complain about networking, but it is an essential part of many jobs and its value is often intangible. Ultimately, those who are prepared to return to the office will do better.