WFH, suddenly taken away, are we really just going back to the old way?

[80caloriesofbiscuitplease]

Today my (public sector) employer announced we were all expected to be back in the office, full time from a months time, with home working only to be used in emergencies.
I know that response to WFH has been mixed from other professionals and some employees have frankly been less productive from home. I would have been happy with one day per week from home as a compromise.
My argument is that there should be a consultation period where we could put forward our rationale for being able to maintain an aspect of home working. Also are we really going to go back to the old way, packed buses, packed trains, traffic, pollution, all for presentism?
I feel that we've seen another way, with happier employees, healthier employees and an improvement in the environment. I work in a grey concrete wasteland where I regularly sit at my desk all day without a break. At home I can open my doors, hear the birds, stroke my cat. My mental health has improved so much and that makes me a better employee. Today two of us were in the office and four were working from home. They really want to go back to six of us coming to work all day, every day to answer emails and input data which we could do from home?
I know I could look for another role but I like my job and I'm quite good at it. I don't want a role which is completely home based, but I feel saddened by the whole world going back to the way we lived before.
And yes I know some have worked out the house the whole way through. It's not a 'my life is harder' competition.

So what was the big data breach and how do you know it isn’t happening daily in homes across the country.

I’m sure my dh’s company follow all the rules but would still love to know how companies are going to fund the best and most secure software and hardware to facilitate the additional risk and to give everybody the choice of working from home.

@Maria53

I agree OP. In our case we were consulted and they ignored the findings - we are also being ordered back asap. Half my team have resigned since the news!

And I've heard of several cases this week of people who have had both vaccines getting covid. This idea that it is over is clearly ridiculous. I hope they do bring a right to work from home because as someone who will need to take 2 modes of transport every day, I am scared. I requested only a day or 2 from home.

You are scared but wfh 1 day. Week will make your fears go away?

@TheSunShinesBrighter

I have a feeling that all these people saying that wfh is the future are older, established in their career, have may even met their partner and some of their friendship group at work, have plenty of space to separate work from home and are generally living quite a nice life

This.

OP, would you be as happy if you were single, living on your own in a small flat/apartment with no garden?

Orin my case, early 40s, don't meet partner at work, most of my friends are from outside of work, Andi think WFH is the future

@Jessop5

Maybe companies will need to prove the tech security they are giving out,how up to date and what quality software/ hardware are,how secure home working environments are, health and safety re desk/ seating..,.,

Oh that will cost £££££ and discriminate those with less favourable home working conditions.

Maybe not.

Most already do. They have internal audits and external audits. Do you think business insurance pays out, of there's a data breech and you did nothing to prevent it?

So they can do these audits to cover everybody working from home? During the pandemic only 25% were wfh . Rolling that out to 100% being able to with a bigger range of roles and risks would be huge.

@Jessop5

No women have had to handle the added pressures wfh cause which have mostly been dumped on them.

Where's your evidence for that statement? What additional pressure does WFH cause you, because for me it reduces my pressure (no commute, lunch break can be used for chores etc etc).

Unless you're confusing WFH + school closure which was shown to cause additional work for women - WFH is shown as positive for women (excluding domestic abuse scenarios).

Love wfh. We will continue. So will majority of people I know. People who work in jobs where this can't be done, service sector etc or don't have the right environment or love the office gossip and crappy sandwiches and commute, can feel free to go back, but shouldn't be telling others that they should. Everyone's circumstances are different. I'm not gonna be commuting for your pleasure. And I really don't care about helping pret survive. Business will adapt.

@Jessop5

So what was the big data breach and how do you know it isn’t happening daily in homes across the country.

I’m sure my dh’s company follow all the rules but would still love to know how companies are going to fund the best and most secure software and hardware to facilitate the additional risk and to give everybody the choice of working from home.

The biggest ones are usually, staff members sat at desks taking customers details. People are not filmed with someone watching every minute you work.

Not every company has problems funding their IT Resource.

And your last post about yours husbands company, suggested they don't follow anything? So which is it you are sure they do, or you are using your husband as an example to prove some aren't upto date with data protection?

From what I can gather, you just don't like the thought of people working from home. For some reason, what building people are sat in working is really important to you.

People have already said, it won't work for every company or every person or every role. That still doesn't mean that lots of people can not continue to work flexibly. If it doesn't work for a company, it doesn't work. If it does work for a certain role or team it doesn't work.

But, back to the point, people have been travelling around with peoples data on their laptops for years. Working on trains, in cafes, in services on the motorway, at home.

@Jessop5

So they can do these audits to cover everybody working from home? During the pandemic only 25% were wfh . Rolling that out to 100% being able to with a bigger range of roles and risks would be huge.

Who is saying it must be rolled out to 100%.

And it was 25% of all workers wasn't it? Not 25% of indidvidual businesses.

Of course they follow rules. It’s just interesting that shiny new software/ hardware clearly isn’t a given. Certainly isn’t in the public sector.

No my worry is my data being put at increased risk unnecessarily.

And frankly I’d rather people were taking my details in an office than their own home where they’d be at an even bigger risk.

The increased risk is clear, some just want to ignore it so they can potter round their garden at lunchtime.

@Jessop5

So what was the big data breach and how do you know it isn’t happening daily in homes across the country.

I’m sure my dh’s company follow all the rules but would still love to know how companies are going to fund the best and most secure software and hardware to facilitate the additional risk and to give everybody the choice of working from home.

The cost of setting up a secure way to wfh is - from a tech pov - comparable to the average cost a corporation might spend on a more 'onsite' setup.

Investment in data centre configuration (the expensive bit) and thin clients (the cheaper bit that means data itself never leaves the data centre even though someone is at home working on it) - over a period of about 6-8 years ends up more or less cost neutral compared with a less powerful data centre setup and providing full laptops to employees. You could make a fair argument that it is a more sensible way to spend tech money as the majority of the investment is at the dc end of the chain where the business is likely to get more value.

There are tonnes of variables, because each business is unique with it's own requirements so individual mileage may vary. I've seen businesses end up spending twice as much going to a thin client model but their data centre had very old kit in that would have needed upgrading anyway. I've also seen businesses save about 30% off their tech budget by doing it. Most come out about neutral, or thereabouts.

There are some scenarios and jobs where the thin client setup probably won't work. I've struggled to see it successfully used in data science roles, for example, because of the high demands of data scientists (not a slight on them). But that's the same of any tech - it works better for some jobs than others; there's always a tech exception in any business setup.

And yes they can audit people working from home. My company can log onto my laptop see exactly what I have done and can do the same to my phone.

Not sure how what percentage is at home impacts an audit.

And frankly I’d rather people were taking my details in an office than their own home where they’d be at an even bigger risk.

The increased risk is clear, some just want to ignore it so they can potter round their garden at lunchtime.

Completely depends on the job, many of them don't involve taking peoples details for one. DHs work & my work involves spreadsheets, I don't have any data to "leave lying around".

And yes they can audit people working from home. My company can log onto my laptop see exactly what I have done and can do the same to my phone.

Yep

I could probably add that there are also other ways to achieve a level of security with wfh that might not cost anything. Anyone handling data that needs to be secured but works in an office will still need a minimum of security protocals in place. Those protocals would work at home in the same way. Things like password protected laptops with secure passwords and hard drive encryption. Monitoring for data collecting/copying and preventating it.

For some levels of data, that would all be sufficient, regardless of where the employee was working.

But they could take screen shots on phones, be using laptops in open areas, be leaving laptops open in non secure areas,having sensitive conversations in non private places….

the list is endless and a bigger risk outside of the office. So it shouldn’t be encouraged.

My nhs trust has a flexible working policy. I think most nhs trusts do. Theres usually a form to apply.

And they can do that in offices.

They have been able to do that, the whole time flexible working has been in place. People, usually, extremely senior people who have access to more information than most......have been doing it for years. And they probably have access to more data, than most other staff put together. The more senior the staff the more likely they are to have perks like wfh, in most companies.

And being aware of your surroundings and positions and use in public spaces is usually covered in the policies discussed earlier.

This has akways happened. Its clear you don't really get that, but its true

I was answering you specific point about tech costs. As it was my specialist subject I thought I'd pipe up.

However, for the rest...

• The phone threat typically suggests someone deliberately trying to steal data. That risk will always be there and I've never worked in an office where I couldn't have easily done that undetected - if I picked my moment.

• Laptops should auto lock, regardless of where they are used. Once locked, the pasword and encryption do the heavy lifting for tech security.

• The rest are risks that either exist already or similar already exist where laptops are provided. Code of conduct policies typically cover them - for things like working in an office where multiple clients are served (e.g. not having a discussion about client A when someone working on client B's account can overhear) or where clients visit the office or where employees visit client offices. Or simply not just going home and yabbering on to friends and family about sensitive stuff you've handled at work. Or posting it on Facebook.

All data is always at risk and after some - ahem - decades working with very sensitive data (e.g. crime data) I cannot honestly agree it is more at risk at home than in an office. Different risks in each location (with much overlap) but not more.

Based on my working experience, the number one thing employers should ban to keep their data secure is corporate email. By far, far, far, that is the weak point.

Oh and converstations in public areas is a risk even in the office. Just because someone works for the same company doesn't mean they are privacy to the information.

Work mobiles have also been a thing for years and years. So again, has been a risk all that time.

Do you employers, not trust you at all? No level of trust? That they can tell you to not do something or to do something, and trust you will do it. And then just audit, to cover their backs?

Jessop5 you sound a bit out of touch. People have been working on laptops away from offices for many years in most sectors. I've had secure remote desktop access for my entire working career (15 years). My employer (ftse100) has not used desktop computers for the last decade, staff are only ever issued laptops. These come with privacy screen protectors, multi factor authentication logins, and numerous other security features. Staff are required to complete data protection training and all understand that data breaches will result in disciplinary action. Home workers are required to have childcare in place for working hours, so no kids running in interrupting etc.

This isn't new with Covid. It's not going to go away, its much more cost effective, better for the environment and for many peoples mental health to be given the choice to hybrid work.

I wfh for about a month, then retired as I hated it. We had to use our own computers though, surely that isn't right and you should be issued a company one.

better for the environment and for many peoples mental health to be given the choice to hybrid work.

Better only for the minority. Those who have the privilege of a home environment suitable for WFH.

Certainly not better for the country as a whole.

Talking of the environment, public transport can't afford to run without the office based industry.

The national economy will lose billions and billions if WFH continues.

Our libraries, nurseries, schools, social services, park maintenance, mental health care sectors have already suffered significant funding cuts over the years. They really can't afford any more.

The economy in general or certain sections or based on tax?

Because everyone I know is spending the same amount, just on different things and more locally. Less on petrol more on their home and gardens. Instead of grabbing food from a chain at lunchtime, they are spending more in the supermarket or using a cafe local to them.

People are spending. They are spending differently but its all 'the economy'.

And where is this based on. Because public transport here is woeful. Most people who work and even the ones that don't, drive.

I most areas around here its the same. Not reliable enough for work or often enough.

People who live close to the office complexes work and bike and did this before. The huge complexes of warehouses, again, have poor public transport. So people drive walk or bike. The only person I know who gets the bus regularly is mil, because she has a free bus pass and had her license taken off her. She goes everyday to the supermarket.

The buses are used by mainly the elderly here. And since restrictions started lifting they are using them again. To get to the nearest city on public transport is almost 2 hours one way. So people just don't do it. If they don't drive, they don't apply for jobs in that city.

So wfh, is having a minimal impact on public transport here and I have lived all over this county only very close to the city has decent public transport.

@Tealightsandd

better for the environment and for many peoples mental health to be given the choice to hybrid work.

Better only for the minority. Those who have the privilege of a home environment suitable for WFH.

Certainly not better for the country as a whole.

Talking of the environment, public transport can't afford to run without the office based industry.

The national economy will lose billions and billions if WFH continues.

Our libraries, nurseries, schools, social services, park maintenance, mental health care sectors have already suffered significant funding cuts over the years. They really can't afford any more.

You have nailed it - unfortunately some of the selfish are still advocating the RIGHT to work from home and talking of stirring up things with unions (heaven forbid).
The country as a whole has to consider the bigger picture and look at the impact on the economy. If employers are happy with WFH and it is carefully managed for those who are able to do it - that is fine. But to even suggest that it should be forced on employers through a legal right just so those who fancy the lifestyle and can get a dog and not have to commute so save pounds and do the school run is unacceptable