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.

@SilverGlitterBaubles

I have work colleagues that didn't always pull their weight in the office and this has not improved very much with working so from home. Of course they are enjoying WFH so much and develop a sudden fear of Covid and quote current WFH guidance whenever going into the office is suggested. They are perfectly happy to socialise and go out and about as normal outside of work though. My issue is that for others the burden is increasing because these types are even more off the radar than before.

Thats down to poor management, which was never going to make wfh (even temporary) a success.

@SilverGlitterBaubles

I have work colleagues that didn't always pull their weight in the office and this has not improved very much with working so from home. Of course they are enjoying WFH so much and develop a sudden fear of Covid and quote current WFH guidance whenever going into the office is suggested. They are perfectly happy to socialise and go out and about as normal outside of work though. My issue is that for others the burden is increasing because these types are even more off the radar than before.

That's on the managers. I wouldn't be allowed to slack even if I wanted to

What extra challenges does it involve, over and above those involved in employing someone for a London post and having them work in Newcastle, for example?

Quite a lot. As an e.g. my own experience looking at offshoring to India included the following. This is not an exhaustive list, not applicable to all countries and probably not applicable to all industries but...

1. Biggest one is office costs and overheads. Property costs (rent and utilities) were very, very high. You'd be amazed at the cost of electricity power for an office, for instance.

1. The power was not reliable. Frequent (daily) outages. We ran back up UPS but these had issues also. The result was regular and sometimes prolonged downtime of some/all systems. You could avoid this and get greater reliability but this pushed costs up quite astronomically.

1. Expectation of minimum 10%+ yearly salary increases. So, whilst salaries were cheaper they did not look that way longer term.

1. Legal. As discussed above sending data across to a UK-based home to be worked on requires some thought to be secure, but it's nothing like sending it across country borders. All sorts of data legislation and contractual challenges arise. Even if using the VDI setup described above. We had contracts thought outright banned data processing in any meaningful way in all but the UK.

1. Cultural. Anyone who thinks a job can just be sent somewhere else without considerable support to either adjust UK expectations of how things are handled or alter how the new team naturally works is going to come unstuck very fast. Which is not to say either is better or worse - just different and that requires adjustment. Plus, most people I worked where highly sensitive to any suggestion of being hired as the cheap labour and had an expectation of being given good quality work, good quality training and development and good quality management (as they should). All of that costs money.

1. Timezones. It was hard to get coverage for UK hours because we are behind India's timezone which means working late. Working late causes issues with transport because often people used company cabs to get to and from work - they don't have cars - and women (and some men) would not travel in the cabs alone so routes had to be carefully worked out so that everyone was safe.

1. Transport reliability. People would be travelling in, by cab, from several miles away using roads that are not the best. That meant frequent no shows in the office, because they just couldn't get in. Things like monsoon season would flood roads and mean the cabs couldn't travel. That meant staffing levels had to be very high to cover in cases like this - pushing up costs.

...and more I've forgotten now. For us, the offshoring was not about cost saving, because costs were not saved in the slightest. It was about talent pools. We just couldn't hire enough people with the right talent and skills in London, so had to look at places where we could find those skills. But it wasn't cheap and it wasn't painless.

If we could have reached more of those skills in the UK by utilising WFH - e.g. by location not being an issue - that might have been an easier way to do it. I suspect we'd have made a different decison in a post-pandemic world and tried for that first.

But what it 100% has absolutely nothing to do with is how long your particular commute is , how much you love pegging out the washing or getting chores done or the success of local high streets and sandwich shops

I disagree with this, to a point. The workplace and employment was changing before this. Plenty of people worked from home or hybrid, because it gave a better work life balance. It improved their lives and in turn productivity.

I could do my job entirely from my office. Even before the pandemic, I worked from various locations. Including home.

At my current and last employer, flexible working was in place to improve the employees well being. People who couldn't or wouldn't complete their work load, were supported and (eventually) if there was no improvement they were managed out. No dragging everyone else in because Trevor never did his share of the work.

I appreciate some jobs can't be done from home effectively. But that doesn't change that lots of employers are implementing flexible working to benefit the employee which (should) in turn benefit the company, if it can be done effective.

Studies have shown for years that desk working is really bad for peoples health and recommendations of moving around will help improve their health. Its funny how no one really cared about that, but now office workers might have some more widespread perks, people seem really bothered by office working conditions.

And also, people are expecting home workers to go back to the office because sandwiches shops in cities are missing out in revenue. Why should office workers care about that? If no one cares about the ones in smaller towns or local economies?

You may not care about my local sandwiche shop, but I care about having a good local busy town. Buy I would expected you to care about them personally but I don't understand why, I am expected to care about sandwiches shops in London.

@Douchebaggette

What extra challenges does it involve, over and above those involved in employing someone for a London post and having them work in Newcastle, for example?

Quite a lot. As an e.g. my own experience looking at offshoring to India included the following. This is not an exhaustive list, not applicable to all countries and probably not applicable to all industries but...

1. Biggest one is office costs and overheads. Property costs (rent and utilities) were very, very high. You'd be amazed at the cost of electricity power for an office, for instance.

1. The power was not reliable. Frequent (daily) outages. We ran back up UPS but these had issues also. The result was regular and sometimes prolonged downtime of some/all systems. You could avoid this and get greater reliability but this pushed costs up quite astronomically.

1. Expectation of minimum 10%+ yearly salary increases. So, whilst salaries were cheaper they did not look that way longer term.

1. Legal. As discussed above sending data across to a UK-based home to be worked on requires some thought to be secure, but it's nothing like sending it across country borders. All sorts of data legislation and contractual challenges arise. Even if using the VDI setup described above. We had contracts thought outright banned data processing in any meaningful way in all but the UK.

1. Cultural. Anyone who thinks a job can just be sent somewhere else without considerable support to either adjust UK expectations of how things are handled or alter how the new team naturally works is going to come unstuck very fast. Which is not to say either is better or worse - just different and that requires adjustment. Plus, most people I worked where highly sensitive to any suggestion of being hired as the cheap labour and had an expectation of being given good quality work, good quality training and development and good quality management (as they should). All of that costs money.

1. Timezones. It was hard to get coverage for UK hours because we are behind India's timezone which means working late. Working late causes issues with transport because often people used company cabs to get to and from work - they don't have cars - and women (and some men) would not travel in the cabs alone so routes had to be carefully worked out so that everyone was safe.

1. Transport reliability. People would be travelling in, by cab, from several miles away using roads that are not the best. That meant frequent no shows in the office, because they just couldn't get in. Things like monsoon season would flood roads and mean the cabs couldn't travel. That meant staffing levels had to be very high to cover in cases like this - pushing up costs.

...and more I've forgotten now. For us, the offshoring was not about cost saving, because costs were not saved in the slightest. It was about talent pools. We just couldn't hire enough people with the right talent and skills in London, so had to look at places where we could find those skills. But it wasn't cheap and it wasn't painless.

If we could have reached more of those skills in the UK by utilising WFH - e.g. by location not being an issue - that might have been an easier way to do it. I suspect we'd have made a different decison in a post-pandemic world and tried for that first.

We probably work in the same industry - in that anyone looking for ‘cheap Labour’ gets what they pay for in terms of low quality work that costs lots more to fix when the inevitable problems crop up. People who have the required skill expect the same pay and conditions and are very hard to retain in the small U.K. labour market let alone a country where everyone seems to be offshoring to. In these cases it’s not worth it and U.K. staff is much better.

It goes in cycles though at different companies. People never remember mistakes. Offshore (for perceived cheapness), problems, onshore, and repeat. Just make sure you’re in the right place at the right time …

*not exact same pay I mean but something that’s not that cheap when you consider all the other extras mentioned above

Could people please stop posting well-informed pieces about data security and network infrastructure and the difficulties of offshoring. You are missing the very basic and fundamental point that IT ISN’T FAIR that some jobs benefit from more comfortable working conditions than others. And perhaps cast your minds back a year to when we apparently collectively decided that there are FRONT LINE KEY WORKERS who are saints and who matter, and there are whingers working from home who don’t.

Problem is if your job can be done wfh in the U.K. then it can probably be done wfh in another country with lower salaries.

Off-shoring isn't quite as easy as that, as a great many companies have discovered over the decades

Exactly, why do people keep saying this. it's really quite ignorant to think you have all these highly qualified & intelligent people in another country who are happy to work for peanuts.

@lljkk I'm friends with the owner really don't have to be Poirot to work that out

@Boood nailed it

I'm with you. We're apparently going back 3 days a week, probably in September. I literally see no point other than bums on seats as we've worked fine in the home since March last year. Bureaucracy

I think WFH flexibility is going to be a major selling point when it comes to recruitment so the market will probably start dictating this in the long run. Personally I’m a lot more productive at home, I’ve started going back into the office once per week and that day is really unproductive in comparison. The admin staff are in full time and some are making snide remarks about what’s the difference between being in the office full or Part time.

I think that the future for lots of jobs is a hybrid working model. It makes sense for people to work more from home if they can do it as well as they can in the office. It means less office space us needed for businesses. My bet is that the civil service is just behind the times.

I agree 100%, OP. The unions are campaigning for a universal right for remote and flexible work and I support this. Most people who have been able to WFH through Covid have been happier, healthier and more productive that before. Apart from being good for the individual, the family, the neighbourhood and the economy, it’s potentially really good for climate change too - reducing all that commuting and intensifying the use of the building stock. I think employers and housing providers should be working out how to make it possible for everyone who wants to, to WFH. Time to move forwards not backwards.

I don’t understand the anti WFH brigade’s ire at hybrid working. It would give people who want to be in the office the choice to do so, so in that respect they get what they want. Why are they still so apoplectic at the notion of some colleagues choosing differently? If they think everyone should be forced into the office that’s no different to people who say everyone should be forced to WFH? Real lack of logic going on there

I have had literally zero time away from work (yay construction industry) and would have killed to stay home for a bit in any capacity and get paid.

Unless ALL of England forces a change individuals WILL lose.

Service has been shit tbh whenever I have approached anyone who is working from home. If you are working to full capacity should you even notice the fucking birds tweeting

@Douchebaggette
Thanks for sharing your experience re outsourcing. It's really interesting and backs up some on my points about it too

Honest it's making me cringe how confidenty people state well of you can work from home your job can be outsourced. It shows quite a significant lack of understanding of what many people do. As if all the people Wfh do admin or work in a call centre. Maybe because you have a simple job doesn't mean we all do. I know that's a bit mean, but the constant oversimplification of a huge population of the workforce does get annoying.

We're quasi public sector & we've reduced the amount of desks in the office by half & we have all been told to come in when & if we like. We have been told we have shown we can all work effectively from home & we are all adults & we will not be told we ever have to go back in the office. I love where I work :-)

There is always going to be 'that' employer who thinks unless they can see you and you're physically 'at work' you're not working. When in fact I've worked with plenty of people who have been in an office all day and done fuck all, so that is a nonsense.

I think they are doing it to force people who don't want to be to be vaccinated

WFH I'm sure has been lovely for people but I don't really understand how people believe that employers are being unreasonable. They want their employees back in the office....it was never meant as a permanent solution. Life needs to be more normal and there's plenty who haven't had and won't have the choice. Don't like it? There's plenty who want to work and won't hold employers to ransom. Ive had to speak to so many people working from home and it's been awful. Lovely people but the mistakes and length of time needed to resolve problems has been ridiculous. It might be perfect for those of you who have benefited from it but that doesn't mean it's the best for the business model.

Ah it is a tricky one....

There will be companies that want the old way of working back in full force. But most companies I think have now considered the flexible working option. I have enjoyed working from home but I am also looking forward to have a routine again and going back but I suspect I'll be in the office twice/ three times a week max. If it is something you feel really strongly about then you should raise it with your company. Discuss mental health etc and if they are a good company they will take that on board. And frankly if they don't, then you should leave and find something that suits you better.

Many of us have had to continue to attend our work places throughout the pandemic and haven’t had the luxury of feeling safe by remaining at home.
I see lots of people complaining about having to attend work again and yet they’re out there living their best lives at the weekend - pubs, day trips, dinner out, people round for drinks and dinner etc.

@BackBoiler

Service has been shit tbh whenever I have approached anyone who is working from home. If you are working to full capacity should you even notice the fucking birds tweeting

What a ridiculous and condescending comment.

Nobody should ever work at full capacity. From a mental health perspective alone, 80-85% is normal, any higher than that over a sustained period will lead to burnout.

I have been really surprised how good the service has been from my bank & insurance companies whos staff are working from home - I think you've been unlucky.

@Vegeetas

I have had literally zero time away from work (yay construction industry) and would have killed to stay home for a bit in any capacity and get paid.

Unless ALL of England forces a change individuals WILL lose.

You do understand there are millions of people who Wfh who have been working their bums off? It's deeply patronising to assume Wfh have been furloughed or have an easy ride.

Stop trying to make yourself look hard done by its embarrassing. I'm sure you new full well going into construction the nature of the work.