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.

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

Most people have a house and a kitchen table. That's fine. Offices are not special unless you need specialist equipment.

Certainly not better for the country as a whole.

Makes zero difference to the country as a whole where most of us work. However it will make a huge difference to our children if we keep on ignoring the climate crisis, mental health crisis and other unhealthy effects of unnecessary daily group working.

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

So? They'll need to adapt then.

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

There's literally no evidence for this.

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.

People keep voting for the Tories so they presumably don't care about these things. And again, people not working from home is not the glue that holds the entire economy and country together. People will still spend their money. If they spend less on commuting and giant rail companies and chain sandwiches then GOOD. We might even get more taxes in our economy that way as we all know that big chains dodge tax.

Agree @bunnybuggs. And also I hope that they don’t expect me to work late for calls or to reply to things because they have took time out of the day to take the dog for an hour walk and/or go and pick up the kids from school

If they want to do it and work late fine, but most people in my work environment work in teams and somebody disappearing for a chunk of the standard working day would be noticeable, inefficient and have a massive impact on others

Before people jump down my neck I know that jobs are different, I am only going by my own team set up as the nature of our work means we need to collaborate together to get things done so split shifts just doesn’t work

Many large global companies have already planned a hybrid WFH model rendering much of this debate irrelevant - the impact made in a short space of time on availability, sickness rates etc has been advantageous to business as well as employee. It's probably a bit different for SME's. The tech/data breach discussion on here is probably at least about 15 years too late - WFH was not new to the pandemic.

Do carry on though.

Most people have a house and a kitchen table.

Loads are overcrowded, too small, poor condition, etc. And actually plenty of people don't have a house. To assume so comes from a position of privileged ignorance. Lots of people live in flats or HMOs.

Makes zero difference to the country as a whole

Billions lost revenue. The office based industry contributes many billions to the national economy. Which pays for public services.

There's literally no evidence for this.

Check out the PWC report.

Huge numbers of people rely on those chain sandwich shops (and the little independents). It's their livelihood. Likewise the transport workers. (And how do we become environmentally friendly without public transport btw?).

It's much more than the sandwich shops too. Dry cleaners, cobblers, taxi services, postroom operatives, office maintenance, office cleaners, and so much more.

Significant proportion of the workforce and economy relies on the office based industry.

Vote whoever. Doesn't matter if there's no money to pay for the public services.

Many large global companies have already planned a hybrid WFH model

Well not in America. One of the leading centres for global companies. The Bank of America is leading the return the the office but they're not alone. Major internationals are going back too.

I cannot say it too many times.

As a customer and client WFH has been crap. There's been a significant worsening of standards of service.

As a customer and client WFH has been crap. There's been a significant worsening of standards of service.

And I would bet my annual wage you won't see that improve if those companies go back. Because wfh, is the reason they are being so rubbish.

Its simply and excuse. Its, mainly, to do with attrition. The pandemic has given them excuse to miss SLAs. But they can say 'yeah but it's because we want to protect our staff. Aren't we such good employers'

While piling the pressure on existing staff and letting them take the brunt of customers frustrations.

@Nayday

Many large global companies have already planned a hybrid WFH model rendering much of this debate irrelevant - the impact made in a short space of time on availability, sickness rates etc has been advantageous to business as well as employee. It's probably a bit different for SME's. The tech/data breach discussion on here is probably at least about 15 years too late - WFH was not new to the pandemic.

Do carry on though.

Ha, exactly!

@Tealightsandd

I cannot say it too many times.

As a customer and client WFH has been crap. There's been a significant worsening of standards of service.

I think this really has been said too many times! Customer service is a tiny percentage of office work. And mostly involves working solo with a computer system and headset, so matters not a jot where they are.

@CrappyBirthday2Me definitely
From my side, customers have been more easily annoyed, and a lot less tolerant. There is a queue for calls, that's not because of WFH as there is only me WFH! It's purely because we are getting battered with calls
I take around 200 a day and I can't physically get through any more, that's my max in 7.5hrs. People are probably perceiving our service as being bad due to covid/WFH but it's the same service except well, busier than ever

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

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.

Agreed. My work computer is a laptop and I started working at my current job before the pandemic. We were already allowed to wfh sometimes. My job can be done exactly the same from any location as long as I have an internet connection. Some jobs can’t and need people on the premises, that’s just the nature of jobs.

I am single and live alone in a small flat and I love WFH. It’s done wonders for my mental health and work life balance. Yes, I do want to potter about and walk the dog and take naps when it’s quiet and that’s exactly why I want to keep wfh but I don’t see why that’s a problem. I get my work done on time and I’m available on the end of a phone or email. I’m not opposed to going into the office on a part time basis, but there is no business reason for me to be there.

Work life balance is important. Presenteeism is toxic and being sat in an office doesn’t automatically mean increased productivity. There’s a reason other countries have 6 hour working days and 4-day weeks - time off and wellbeing is important and personally I want to fit work around my life, not the other way round. It’ll save companies money when they no longer have to rent so much office space and hopefully decentralise industries that are currently very London centric.

I think hybrid working is the answer. People shouldn’t be forced to wfh full time because clearly some hate it but neither should people be forced to be in the office full time because a lot of people hate that too, and it isn’t necessary in many jobs. There are plenty of jobs that will always require people to be on the premises, these aren’t going to stop existing. As the hospitality industry opens up again staff will be needed. Customer facing roles will become face to face again as restrictions ease. There are options for those who don’t want to wfh. But there should also be options for those who do - why does work have to be done within a rigid structure?

WFH has changed my life and I’m not going back to the office five days a week. One or two maybe, but that’s it. It isn’t necessary and I can do my job well from home.

I’m not wasting my own time on a daily commute when I don’t need to. Saving ‘office reliant industries’ by making everyone else’s life shit isn’t good enough. Not acceptable.

The world of work has changed and we don’t need dinosaurs clinging on to the past. We’ve now discovered a better way of living and working, with less pollution and a better work/ life balance. I’m keeping it.

@TheSmallAssassin

Hmm, *@Justanotherlurker*, I work for a public sector organisation and we've just been told that no-one is allowed to work from abroad any more due to the complications that arise, so I don't think your prediction of swathes of middle management being offshored is likely.

I think it's really short sighted of your employer OP :-/ We've been told we will be able to work from home up to 3 days a week if we fancy, but we've been making big strides on the diversity front and have good technology. I wish other employers were more progressive, I think they will lose competitive advantage (even the public sector has to compete for staff)

Having staff dotted around the beaches of the Caribbean and the vineyards of Europe certainly creates some tax complications. Outsourcing the entire team to India on the other hand is different - you still have everyone under the same tax jurisdiction as each other and you can pay them peanuts.

Manufacturing, call centres and IT have gone overseas, the middle classes shouldn't assume that they are immune.

Outsourcing is different to employing. Yes, companies have contracted call centres in India to do customer service or IT or various other tasks but they’re not direct employees of the company - or if they are, the company will have an office in India that employs local staff.

Due to the nature of my job I have a visa allowing me to work in the US. However, it only permits me to work for British companies - it allows me to be on US soil and remain there for the duration of the work but it’s illegal for me to be paid in dollars or work for US-based firms. I’m not as familiar with the UK’s employment visas but employing people who live in different countries won’t be exempt from visa requirements just because of the rise of remote working. They may be able to be contracted, or freelance for, UK companies but it’s very unlikely firms will spend the necessary money on work visas for staff in India just so they can pay lower salaries than they would to people in the UK.

Manufacturing, call centres and IT have gone overseas, the middle classes shouldn't assume that they are immune.

Why would middle calls people be immune to these jobs going abroad?

*middle class

@CrappyBirthday2Me

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

Most people have a house and a kitchen table. That's fine. Offices are not special unless you need specialist equipment.

Certainly not better for the country as a whole.

Makes zero difference to the country as a whole where most of us work. However it will make a huge difference to our children if we keep on ignoring the climate crisis, mental health crisis and other unhealthy effects of unnecessary daily group working.

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

So? They'll need to adapt then.

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

There's literally no evidence for this.

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.

People keep voting for the Tories so they presumably don't care about these things. And again, people not working from home is not the glue that holds the entire economy and country together. People will still spend their money. If they spend less on commuting and giant rail companies and chain sandwiches then GOOD. We might even get more taxes in our economy that way as we all know that big chains dodge tax.

I couldn't disagree more.

Working from the kitchen table is what's causing the hatred for many for wfh. It's not suitable for many for long term and leads to people feeling they live at work rather than work from home.

I can't work from my dining table. Not least as it's a gateleg table and only set up when needed due to space. But we also use multiple screens so even with a laptop that's easy to put away the second screen stays.

The fold away chairs we use for the kitchen table are certainly not ideal for sitting at for hours a day and the height isn't great for long term keyboard use. Nowhere out of sight for an office chair.

Then if I am using the table during the day no one else can. So the kids can't eat their lunch there. They can't have the tv on (table is in the living room) and the whole room becomes out of bounds for everyone in the family while I work.

This is the reality for many when working from home without a dedicated space.

Never mind from a health and safety viewpoint the employer should be making sure that there is an adequate space for a propeller chair etc.

How can anyone work properly on the kitchen table, DH had the spare room to work in and that was bad enough, I could hear his calls through the door, luckily he is retired now or he would have been banished to the caravan on the drive.

@Ijustknowitstimetogo

WFH has changed my life and I’m not going back to the office five days a week. One or two maybe, but that’s it. It isn’t necessary and I can do my job well from home.

I’m not wasting my own time on a daily commute when I don’t need to. Saving ‘office reliant industries’ by making everyone else’s life shit isn’t good enough. Not acceptable.

The world of work has changed and we don’t need dinosaurs clinging on to the past. We’ve now discovered a better way of living and working, with less pollution and a better work/ life balance. I’m keeping it.

Speak for yourself. I guess that you don’t live in a small flat/apartment, studio flat or in a cramped, noisy house share with very little room and shared WiFi. I also guess you don’t live alone?

Many people like to commute, take sociable lunch breaks, have real life contact with others. People also need space to work uninterrupted.

Working from home would suit me perfectly as I have a good sized house with plenty of indoor & outdoor space, fast WiFi connection and very little interruption during the day. I also have a family to keep me company at the end of the day.

I’m not stupid enough to think everyone is as fortunate.

It's obvious what the solution is. Let people decide! If they want to wfh and can and do so well, let them. If they want to work from the office for whatever reason, let them. Happier workers is what you want, not pissed off ones.

Many people like to commute, take sociable lunch breaks, have real life contact with others. People also need space to work uninterrupted.

Many people might and many other people don’t. I have a social life for having contact with others. That’s not why I work - I work purely to earn money.

I’m not stupid enough to think everyone is as fortunate.

Neither am I. I was speaking for myself and the millions of people who have said they’ve found the same.

@Tealightsandd Agreed re customer service plummeting due to WFH both as a business dealing with other businesses and as a personal customer. Every other excuse is 'due to Covid' or 'due to staff WFH', the point is if companies have staff WFH I shouldn't notice any difference and the level of service should be exactly the same as if they were in an office.

ustknowitstimetogo

Many people might and many other people don’t. I have a social life for having contact with others. That’s not why I work - I work purely to earn money.

As I said, lucky you (and lucky me).

Every other excuse is 'due to Covid' or 'due to staff WFH', the point is if companies have staff WFH I shouldn't notice any difference and the level of service should be exactly the same as if they were in an office.

I wonder how much of this is actually WFH (with poor infrastructure) and how much, as in a PP’s experience, is using WFH and Covid as the excuse when the actual issue is gutting staffing levels/furloughing staff unnecessarily to save cash.

@jewel1968

I think hyrid working should be the new way of working. In my experience employees are more productive if happier and have some control of where they work. It's true that businesses might seek cheaper employees from overseas but then who will buy stuff on our high street?

Noone is buying stuff on our high street.