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"

London weighting isn't often higher than commuting costs. In terms of time saved as well I am sure a lot of people will still find it a good deal.

Outsourcing isn't possible for many jobs, a lot of companies where it might work have already tried it. Probably national variation in pay will even out a bit, but that's not a bad thing.

I'm not overly arsed on home working, I live close to work which was a purposeful choice that came with a pay cut, but whether in or out the office don't have a preference, but the same boring and bitter lines getting trotted out are tedious.

Also The Telegraph aka the Torygraph isn't a great indicator of... anything really except possibly of tory twatness?
Ha, I came here to say this. “Tory rag in publishes Tory opinions shocker.”

@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?

Sorry this is just balls.

I work from home three days a week (partly hangover from COVID and partly because of childcare issues). Two outputs of this for me are:

a) Not having to commute for the best part of three hours a day means my productivity is way higher than it would be if I were trying to condense everything into office hours. I manage teams of more junior people there is rarely a half-hour period when someone is not pinging me to ask for guidance. If I'm on a train that's an hour when people don't have a senior person to talk to.

b) The trade off for my not being in the office every day is that I'm expected to be "always on". I start work much earlier than most people and finish later. It's not ideal for my W/L balance and sometimes pisses me off but for me its a trade-off worth making because I get to be at home when my daughter gets home and I don' have several hours of unproductive time when I'm on a train.

So your resentment of people who WFH is your own problem and that's understandable but that doesn't change the fact that for those of us who do, many of us find our productivity is way higher than when we're schlepping in and out purely so we can be seen to be sitting at a desk.

It's the Torygraph. What do you expect?

@PhilCornwall1

"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.

Yeah that's a bloody joke. We do more work from home than those in the office do. The amount of people who walk away from their desk many times during the day for a coffee, which turns into a long chat with a coworker (and don't kid yourselves it's work related), or many many smoking breaks, or for the men long toilet breaks.

If they want me back in the office, I'll be doing the minimum needed and no more because I have a commute then. I'm not staying longer and missing out on my life for work, no thank you.

Yeah that's a bloody joke. We do more work from home than those in the office do. The amount of people who walk away from their desk many times during the day for a coffee, which turns into a long chat with a coworker (and don't kid yourselves it's work related), or many many smoking breaks, or for the men long toilet breaks.

Yep. Working in an office is about 40% chit-chat and timewasting. Some of that is actually useful for social cohesion/mentoring and staying on top of what's happening so its not all bad and you do need a bit of that. But anyone who thinks their productivity is higher in the office than at home is deluding themself.

[quote MrsTophamHat]@Elephantsparade not rewarded but compensated for in the wage. Surely workiing conditions is taken into account when deciding on a salary anyway. Things like unsociable hours and night shifts are recognised due to the impact on your work life balance, so I don't see why there couldn't be some recognition that WFH can make life easier and more flexible. [/quote]
In my work we were actually compensated with a flat fee for wfh because we use more utilities, and most importantly - space in your own house (basically you are paying for their office space!). Also with cycling, etc. commute is not necessarily more expensive. i do not believe wfh should be paid less. In fact, we were paid more.

@MasterGland

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.

This this this!! It’s all about the profit!

More flexibility helps the employers as much as the employees. I work a lot with the US and if I need to call them now I can adjust my home working hours without being paid overtime/time off in lieu.

@requiredusername women are going to be worse off because although WFH allows you to be more flexible (sometimes) it means you're not visible at work. Women already have slower and more challenging career progression because of this and it's amplified in an environment where women are at home and men are in the office. It also means women start to take on MORE home responsibilities than before. Dr Heejung Chung writes about this in her 'flexibility paradox' book, it's worth a read.

As wel as political agendas, one thing your question made me think about was one of the last places that sees a good volume of physical paper sales is the railway station newsagent. Especially with promotions like ‘buy a bottle of water, get a paper free’ promos.

So that will be a really important location for print media to keep up their physical circulation figures which impacts on ad rates and revenues etc.

WFH = no commute = lower uptake of papers

[quote Mittenmob]@requiredusername women are going to be worse off because although WFH allows you to be more flexible (sometimes) it means you're not visible at work. Women already have slower and more challenging career progression because of this and it's amplified in an environment where women are at home and men are in the office. It also means women start to take on MORE home responsibilities than before. Dr Heejung Chung writes about this in her 'flexibility paradox' book, it's worth a read.[/quote]
Definitely! I have experienced that in a previous job where i was one of the few people working form home and, although I was enormously productive, i got promoted relatively late comparatively to the people who were in the office (men)

However if the whole office is fully remote that evens the paying field up. I have experience of this as I am in a fully remote company now and my moving up has been a lot quicker.

My husband has been WFH since March 2020; his employer recently totally gave up their city centre base when the lease came up for renewal.
Clients are still seeking teams meetings rather than face to face and there hasn’t been any drop in productivity since sending everyone home with a laptop, so from a business perspective it made no sense to keep it on.
They have an out of town industrial park type base for the limited jobs that can’t be WFH.

My husband has saved a small fortune and our lifestyle has changed a lot. He used to spend £80 a month on his public transport ticket, would eat lunch out half the days, and I would regularly meet him to grab dinner in town after work.

We now go sometimes months between visits to town. We spend our money in a different way- we order more online even compared to dropping into a city centre shop.

When we recently had a day off we travelled into town to have lunch, and you can clearly still see the effects of everyone WFH. His old office block now has multiple floors visibly empty. Shops have closed. The only place with a queue still is Greggs. You get a seat on public transport!

We are the some of the pandemic ‘winners’ but it’s not hard to see the losers in retail, hospitality and commercial property.

I obviously have more sympathy with those working in minimum wage jobs in those sectors rather than landlords, but whilst the high st etc was dying off a bit, the pandemic has set off a rapid decline.

Meanwhile though it’s great locally in our suburb-local restaurants and cafes are doing really well and more places opening up as people are around to spend their money there.

It’s a big cultural shift and there will be those invested on both sides.

Of course from our perspective it’s great- but it’s also changed the way we will probably move in future too now he is going to be remote working for potentially years to come. We have given up a bedroom to be an office, but also don’t really need the great proximity to public transport anymore. We will probably move further out of the city to get a house with more bedrooms.

Not all jobs but many WFH jobs are the preserve of the well educated and middle classes. One could argue it opens a divide where people on minimum wage are still having to pay for public transport etc whilst those earning more are at home saving on those costs.

You need childcare no matter what of course. I would argue if they want people back in the city centre offices companies in general are going to have to offer more flexitime to entice people in.

Big business protecting big business again. They don't give a shit about working conditions or the risk of falling ill and/or dying as a result of the pandemic. They want you back in the commercial property that is being rented for £££ each month and generate their £££ on your £21K a year salary.

[quote Mittenmob]@requiredusername women are going to be worse off because although WFH allows you to be more flexible (sometimes) it means you're not visible at work. Women already have slower and more challenging career progression because of this and it's amplified in an environment where women are at home and men are in the office. It also means women start to take on MORE home responsibilities than before. Dr Heejung Chung writes about this in her 'flexibility paradox' book, it's worth a read.[/quote]
Why would it only be women WFH?

Why would it only be women WFH?

Same question as above?

It's not just women working from home, of course not, but women are already those who are more likely to stay working from home and/or wfh more often. It's less easy for women with caring responsibility to drop everything and go in for drinks at the pub with colleagues, particularly if WFH routines mean no childcare is set up for such occassions. yes men might be impacted too but there is no point pretending that women and men have equal roles at work and at home, you might, but the vast majority of women take on 'the second shift'. So they will be disproportionally impacted by WFH, maybe not now, but 10 years down the line all those face to face meetings and catch ups are the ones where bonds are formed and promotions are decided. You can be as productive as you like but if no one notices your productivity at home then you're screwed. Eventually you may find organisations where women are the work horses at home while the men talk strategy in the office. I love WFH but I'm not blind to the risks of it career-wise.

The Telegraph is very anti lockdown and probably sees wfh as an extension of lockdown. I always assumed a lot of newspaper journalists worked from home anyway.

I’m still waiting for a form from teachers pensions to arrive and I asked for it some three weeks ago.

Productivity impacts of WFH depend to a very great extent on the infrastructure support provided to anyone WFH.

In our organisation, there are no paper forms left. There are vanishingly few things that need to be done in person. Some support which was always considered too expensive has been funded by the arrangements set in place for the pandemic.

Even back office processes have been impacted. All our pension administration is now online so there is no question of waiting three weeks for a 'form' to be produced. All the figures on contributions etc are available to recall. Any form that still needs a signature is downloaded, signed and returned.

If the 'forms' are in a box in a cupboard in the office, it will of course take much longer for a copy to be provided to you.

Hope it arrives soon.

It's not really about WFH, it's about the infrastructure provided to those WFH.

I haven't been reading the Telegraph, but at one stage a few months ago Boris and other senior politicians were wittering about it being time to go back into the office.

I was very puzzled by that. Why do they care? What difference does it make to them?

Employers have good reason to have an opinion, but it's not at all clear what it is. For every employer I've read of who wants to go back to the pre-covid status quo there's another who has made a firm decision to go in the opposite direction. But the vast majority seem to be playing it by ear, and have no strong feelings in either direction.

So why the heck did politicians have an opinion?

I am one of this retired people with big pensions invested in commercial proprerty. In fact I manage my own investments and am much more invested in it than is considered normal. My self-imposed rules for allocating money do not allow me to change my investments based on theorising about the impact of covid, even though I am nervous about it. I'm continuing to hold property, no idea if that will be something I regret. I have no desire to force people back to the office, quite the opposite. I wish I could have worked from home my whole life, and think the world will be a better place if in future people like me can work from home more.

[quote Mittenmob]@requiredusername women are going to be worse off because although WFH allows you to be more flexible (sometimes) it means you're not visible at work. Women already have slower and more challenging career progression because of this and it's amplified in an environment where women are at home and men are in the office. It also means women start to take on MORE home responsibilities than before. Dr Heejung Chung writes about this in her 'flexibility paradox' book, it's worth a read.[/quote]
Not everyone cares about progressing though. I certainly don't. Ooh yay make me a manager PLEASE, I totally want to hear about how everyone's problems were caused by me and I need to fix them. Not all employees are like that of course, but if you get one, oh boy you're up shit creek.

I don't want kids, I'm fine with where I am pay wise etc, I don't live to work. Work pays my bills and for my hobbies. I have zero interest in it otherwise.

@FreedomFaith

It's not just about promotion, it can also affect you when cuts are made.

[quote flashbac]@FreedomFaith

It's not just about promotion, it can also affect you when cuts are made.[/quote]
Not if everyone is at home.

Employers have good reason to have an opinion, but it's not at all clear what it is. For every employer I've read of who wants to go back to the pre-covid status quo there's another who has made a firm decision to go in the opposite direction. But the vast majority seem to be playing it by ear, and have no strong feelings in either direction.

This is one of the problems: employers seem to be making it up pretty much on the hoof, with policies changing often week by week even within firms and as you say, firms have wildly different approaches to this.

There's also the "official" line versus the unofficial one: a lot of companies realise that its politically unacceptable to actually force people into offices when its borderline unsafe, but make it very clear unofficially that those who do go in will get promoted faster and will be seen more positively etc.

It's shit for everyone and no doubt shit for employers too.