Why are certain newspapers so against WFH?

[Circlesandtriangles]

AIBU for seeing a persistent agenda in The Telegraph against working from home? It also has a completely misogynist undertone. Not everyone has to be a massive fan of it, but why work so hard to stoke up opinion against it??

Example headlines from November:

"If you want to lose your job, work from home"
"Just one in ten women working from home plan to return to office"
"Take it from a mother, working from home is a disaster for women"
"HMRC spends millions so staff can abandon offices"
"Afghan allies ‘left at the mercy of Taliban’ while civil servants worked from home"
"People working from home do half an hour less each day, study finds"
"It's high time staff returned to the office"

They are writing for an older demographic who didn't have the chance to work from home ?
They want to include topics about women but somehow they turn out to be critical, on the whole?

The owners mates own Pret?

Owners probably have a lot of money invested in commercial property.

Perhaps they’re pushing it from an angle that suits business owners. The people that have shares in/own transport, take-away coffee shops etc.

I read The Telegraph, although I am not their target audience. I think there is a great hesitancy about WFH amongst the section of society that make money from other people working and consuming.
I think many fear WFH will be a slippery slope to a low economic growth society, albeit probably a happier one. WFH, 4 day week and eventually a universal basic income. These ideas are being seriously discussed by many. It is probably quite scary to those who profit from the current status quo.

I’ve no idea why they are attacking women, men are just as bad.

I am not convinced wfh is as wonderful as it is regularly claimed on here, though.

Where is a universal basic income being seriously discussed?

The Telegraph writes for a demographic heavily invested in commercial property etc. Their interests are adversely affected by wfh.

"People working from home do half an hour less each day, study finds"

Hmmm, having been WFH for 14 years, I've yet to have that happen. On average it's an hour and a half more each day.

Because the Telegraph is written to push an agenda that is not in the interests of working people.

Also in answer to a pp: WFH, 4 day week and UBI do not link automatically to low growth. UK has very low productivity currently, we are not a high-performing economy currently. A lot is propped up on property values.

@manysummersago

Where is a universal basic income being seriously discussed?

Spain, Wales, some American States.

@manysummersago

Where is a universal basic income being seriously discussed?

Think it is inevitable once automation/AI kicks in seriously.

Right, I didn’t see it happening here, somehow!

@PhilCornwall1 every time WFH is discussed on MN people say similar. They are so much more productive. Yet this doesn’t tally with my experiences to be honest. I’m certainly not saying that you personally aren’t but I think overall people may think they are more productive but aren’t.

I don’t think it is at all, @rrhuth. New jobs come along to replace the old all the time.

As someone who's wfh for years I certainly don't work less. I imagine it's to do with their investments going down not to mention the marked hit wfh has had on the prices and sales of London flats which a lot of people in the media who are against wfh probably own.

@manysummersago

I don’t think it is at all, *@rrhuth*. New jobs come along to replace the old all the time.

Have you read much about AI/automation? The point is there is an expectation of fewer jobs overall.

@Bellafrenum

The owners mates own Pret?

This

@manysummersago

Right, I didn’t see it happening here, somehow!

@PhilCornwall1 every time WFH is discussed on MN people say similar. They are so much more productive. Yet this doesn’t tally with my experiences to be honest. I’m certainly not saying that you personally aren’t but I think overall people may think they are more productive but aren’t.

I think it depends on the role. People in certain roles probably will be able to get more done. I certainly do. However I met someone recently who 'works' from home with no childcare for her 1 year old. Local government employee in an officer role.

I've experienced nothing but poor customer service during the pandemic. This may be because of WFH or maybe not.

I think WFH is a force for good but there needs to be a mechanism to check productivity without spying or intruding on privacy.

The TORYgraph don't like WFH because it affects commercial rents.

They'll push the angle their readers most want to hear.

The Daily Mail is at it today blaming the mess in Afghanistan squarely on home working 🙄. I assume their investors are city centre landlords

It’s hard to say. I’m certainly hearing a lot of ‘our services may be reduced due to the coronavirus pandemic’ and I’m still waiting for a form from teachers pensions to arrive and I asked for it some three weeks ago.

this thread was quite a read, though!

As someone who has never worked from home it pisses me off. I am still paying out childcare, petrol etc. I choose to work part time and take the equivalent pay cut that goes with that while I see people on the school run that then nip to activities/coffee shop/playground with their kids. Sure there are some that put all the hours in later but their are plenty more who don’t whilst taking a full time wage. Civil service appears to be the worst for it. If this is going to carry on then this that those that have to travel to work need to be paid a premium or no one is going to choose these careers going forward. And why the hell would you when this jobs that allow working from home have it so cushy?

There are lots of business sectors that rely on people going to work eg commercial property, retail, hospitality. Most media owners have varied investments and assets, and alliances with other business owners in other sectors.

They would prefer a burnt-out, workforce with higher Covid rates than a workforce that is questioning any aspect of the status quo.

The pandemic represented a great opportunity to restructure every aspect of society. That threatens the conglomerates and multinationals who thrive in the current system.

@olivehater

As someone who has never worked from home it pisses me off. I am still paying out childcare, petrol etc. I choose to work part time and take the equivalent pay cut that goes with that while I see people on the school run that then nip to activities/coffee shop/playground with their kids. Sure there are some that put all the hours in later but their are plenty more who don’t whilst taking a full time wage. Civil service appears to be the worst for it. If this is going to carry on then this that those that have to travel to work need to be paid a premium or no one is going to choose these careers going forward. And why the hell would you when this jobs that allow working from home have it so cushy?

I think, you don't see them working and you have no idea what hours they work. If their job wasn't getting done then I'm sure they wouldn't have the job for long.

It's a good thing if people can work flexibly, fitting things around around their family, allowing them to do simple things like take their child to the park before school, rather than sitting in a car alone for an hour emitting greenhouse gasses while their kids are looked after by someone else. Why wouldn't we want families to be able to do this?

If it looks good then you can seek a career that also offers this.

Because many sectors rely on office workers being in the office, and are hugely struggling with so many people working from home. And the Telegraph is a paper that's aimed at those business owners who are struggling.

Lots of food shops and cafes, for example, would do a roaring trade at lunch with office workers getting sandwiches and soups or going for business lunches.

Likewise coffee shops with people grabbing a coffee on the way to the tube or the office.