To hate the Daily Mail and its anti WFH vendetta

[catsliketowearsocks]

There is yet another DM story doing the rounds today about people 'working from beach'. Apparently it's council worker this time rather than civil servants. I work for a council and we would not be able to live abroad as we have impromptu office meetings, but even if we wanted to for the short term (like, for a family emergency or flight issues) we would have to apply for permission due to cybersecurity rules.

The DM would like to ban WFH which is just nasty. There may be a small number who take the piss but I don't believe that's the norm. WFH has vastly improved my life and mental health.

I'm willing to bet many DM journalists work remotely.

I work 50% at home and 50% in the office. It's a nice balance. I probably work harder at home and spend more time in the office actually managing my team and building relationships.

I think it's really odd to be sad because other people feel differently about their colleagues than you do.

There's also quite a big middle ground being missed out here. Colleagues can be people you don't need to be in physical proximity to in order to all do your jobs well, and who you wouldn't choose to interact with over other people in your life, whilst not being objects of contempt.

Which isn't to downplay that some people also have very good reason to think badly of their colleagues- I'm not one of them, mine are great actually. But plenty are. Equally there are others for whom, unlike you, their work is actually one big happy family. Which is fine too, and it would also be odd for someone else to be sad about that.

Yes, I can completely see that if you hate your work, your colleagues, and have no desire to build relationships or progress, then of course WFH full-time would be preferable to being in an office.

All of my remarks were coming from the point of view of wanting to thrive and progress at work. I don't socialise with my colleagues much either, except at essential events like a Christmas party.

@PinkCherryBlossoms The family thing was an analogy - I was not saying it's identical or that I feel the same about colleagues as I do about family, I was saying there are certain aspects of relationships of any sort that can be replicated online and others that cannot. There is nuance and subtlety in human relationships that cannot be replicated via a Teams chat. I could give you several concrete examples of this from my own work if it wouldn't out me, but I'm sure everyone can think of their own examples from their own fields.

Even working with extremely difficult and unpleasant people, it can sometimes be necessary to build strong in-person relationships. Sometimes it can be more important when things are difficult, in fact.

I mean I'm not going to waste much of my time being sad about it!

But some of the stuff written about not wanting to listen to colleagues or talk to them seems so miserable. On a different thread there were some interesting points made about lockdown and a lot of the post lockdown landscape reducing "incidental" social interactions and people feeling all the poorer for it.

For example on friday I was in the office and a few of us sat at a table in the canteen and chatted about something and nothing over lunch - are these people goind to be my best friends? No. Do I feel the need to do it every day? No. But it was nice to spend an hour or so chatting about stuff over lunch.

Yes exactly that @Ginmonkeyagain - online working during the pandemic got the essential business done, and that's that. No incidental conversations, no ideas sparked by something you heard someone else say or meeting a new person who happened to be in the office that day who you'd never spoken to before. It's impossible to 'prove' - as keeps being demanded on this thread - the value that these things add, because obviously you manage fine without that 'extra' but once it came back, you realised how absent it had been...

@PinkCherryBlossoms The family thing was an analogy - I was not saying it's identical or that I feel the same about colleagues as I do about family, I was saying there are certain aspects of relationships of any sort that can be replicated online and others that cannot. There is nuance and subtlety in human relationships that cannot be replicated via a Teams chat. I could give you several concrete examples of this from my own work if it wouldn't out me, but I'm sure everyone can think of their own examples from their own fields.

Think you tagged the wrong poster there? It wasn't me who said anything to you about families.

@cathyj77 I also read somewhere that for a good number their first friendships with someone a different age or ethnic background from themselves were often made in the workplace.

The problem with setting up this stance as the default is that one person's beneficial, idea sparking incidental conversation is another person's unhelpful interruption that makes their job harder. Neither of them are wrong.

And this is a real problem with discussions about location of work. In all these threads, there's invariably someone who's determined that because they think something is helpful and beneficial, it's the same for everyone.

I haven't got a problem with people working from home and in many situations it can be beneficial but something that is completely over looked sometimes is that it can be very exclusionary. As an autistic person I really struggling with communicating not face to face as I find it very hard to understand tone of voice with out facial features. I get severe anxiety doing video calls and just can't do them and I have difficulty understanding people on the phone. Lots of jobs I previously would have considered going into are now largely remote potions and there is absolutely no way I would be able to work in a team remotely.

This is a problem also with appointments and health care. Alot of health care is now remote and I can't access any of it. I have found the push for remote working and remote appointments disabling really.

That's interesting @Dolores87 . I am neurotypical and hate Teams meetings as I realised how much I rely on unspoken body language and gestures to read the tone of a meeting!

@Eleganz I didn't say it was harder but the idea that everyone could easily afford a nice family house on a 3 X salary mortgage is wrong. Some people could but some people can do that now, depends where you live and what you earn.

We were trying to buy from 1970 to 1973 and there was a price boom, at the start we could almost afford a nice 3 bed semi in good condition. We kept saving hard and prices kept going up so by the time we bought in 1973 we bought a run down 2 up 2 down. We had to put new windows in as they were rotten, new joists and floor boards, new kitchen as the kitchen was a victorian sink. We did all that, decorated, carpeted and after 2 years sold it for £1,800 more than we paid for it so we made a loss. There have always been times when people struggled to buy, my parents never owned a house, my grandparents never owned a house. We thought we did well to buy a house but it was a rather expensive venture and when we needed a bigger house we had no more equity than we started off with but we did benefit from buying when the market was low just like this year people are buying cheaper than people did last year.

Houses like my first house are now being sold fully modernised with central heating and double glazing and someone on an average wage could buy it if they have a 15% deposit like we did and even with what has happened to mortgages you'd get a better mortgage deal than we did. We don't all live in the south east.

I hope you are enjoying your professional salary but it doesn't sound like you are but despite your professional status you really didn't read my post as I never said anything about getting the blame just like I didn't say we had it harder but maybe the only way you can make an argument is to literally make things up.

My issue with the push to get people back to the office and this is from my personal experience, my husband moved jobs to a employer further afield on the basis that it was remote working with occasional visits to the office when a "purposeful presence" was needed. They have since decided they want everyone back on a regular basis. When he raised it with his manager and said he would not have taken the job had he known this he was told "well that was because of covid but it was never going to stay like that forever". Perhaps they could have pointed that out when they were recruiting. He works in a team of 5 and all of them were employed in 2020 on the basis of remote working.

Yeah that is a bit cowardly, but ultimately it will be down to what is in his contract.

I joined my current workplace in late 2020 when the majority of us were required to WFH full time due to lockdown.

It was made very clear to us that staff were expected to remain within a reasonable commute of an office (we have five across the UK) and once lockdown was over full time WFH was only going to be an option for people who made separate applications, just as they would have done before covid.

We are now required to do at least 60% of our time in the office. It is not rigorously enforced but I can get the sense that those whk do not do this regularly are not regarded favourably by management (excepting people who have formal arrangements for permanent WFH for whatever reason - eg health, caring etc..)

If schools are closed because of the current safety problems there will be a lot of pupils and teachers working from home again.

For me, it wasn't that I didn't want to talk to colleagues or socialise on a basic level with them. It was that I didn't want to do this for 8 hours straight, spontaneously, in an open plan office, while also trying to work. Or after working in that environment for 8 hours straight.

When I started WFH, I made time to socialise/network with people in my industry whether at events or one-on-one. They were in non-office contexts, I was refreshed and enthusiastic about them and I wasn't trying to meet a deadline simultaneously.

I think people sometimes get the wrong end of the stick when WFH advocates say they enjoy working without people around them. It's often not the people themselves but the sheer overwhelm of all your colleagues and having to constantly shift in and out of "on" social mode and "head down" work mode.

In most of the companies I've worked for there's been a specific messaging channel for casual chat, incidental info, jokes and gossip (still professional obviously). Several years ago I had to work in an office for a month for a specific contract and everyone used the Slack channel for chat and banter anyway, even though they were sitting in the same room. That suited me fine.

My role depends quite heavily on having ideas and being creative and tbh 90% of my best ideas come when I go for a run. I'm constantly "taking in" what people say, both colleagues and the wider social culture, but it's only when I'm on my own that my thoughts can really crystallise into an idea.

Needless to say WFH is essential to being able to just get away from my desk spontaneously and go for a run in the middle of the day.

Ahh I see. My job is managing this balance all the time, so I suppose I find it easier or at least inevitable. I could be writing a report or paper and have to down tools immediately to deal with an urgent quesrion or meeting. If I got pissdd off every time that happened I woidm be permanently angry.

I know someone who works for HMRC, and being in the office or not has no bearing on productivity. In fact a long commute and in-office distractions can detract from the working day. The problem for the HMRC as for other sections of the public sector is that resources have been slashed to the bone and then some. They're dealing with antiquated IT systems, poor pay, not enough people, and processes introduced by private consultants that slow things down (but the consultants get their pay and move on).

I know a few people who have simply upped and left in that situation. Obviously IT is slightly an outlier, but not only did they find what they wanted, the vacancies they left behind became harder to fill.

The real deal behind the hate for homeworking isn't just about offices, lattes and whatever else fits across the strapline of the Daily Mail. It's much more that it's actually empowered some people that aren't supposed to be empowered. Especially women. And that terrifies a whole strata of society that has devoted it's entire existence to keeping them in their place.

It's beyond living memory now, but it's not unlike when women had been forced to prove their worth in WW1 and then trying to row back that to the little woman view in 1918. Women ? Wanting a vote ? Surely not !

Historians will know what happened after the "back to the fields" campaign of the Statute of Labourers 1351.

@Iwasafool

If you weren't making a post about how tough it was for you compared to now, what exactly was the point of raising your now 50 years out of date experience as a first time buyer?

You say that previous generations to you couldn't afford homes, but you could - you were better off than they were, but the generations after you are not better off than you are - that is the point.

All your response does is to show me how out of touch you are with the current situation faced by the generations after you.

At the start of the 70's average house prices were around 2.2 times the average (male) wage. After the big boom during the early 70s and the economic turmoil of the later 70s that had risen to just less than 3 times the average salary in 1980.

Right now in 2023 the average house price is over 10 times the average salary in the UK. The well over decade long stagnation in wages and continuing rises in house prices are completely unprecedented in recent times. Living standards are facing their fastest drop in the post-war era. Yet on that backdrop you think that your tale of woe from the early 70s is evidence that you also had it tough in any comparable way to what those after you have experienced over the last decade and half? Fixer uppers never make their money back unless you do most of the work yourself, this has always been the case.

As for your property - if we take the average salary of 27.5k and the average loan to salary ratio of 4.5 we get a house price of £124k - well below the average UK house price. That would still require someone to save almost £19k for a 15% deposit. With the current cost of living crisis that is simply an unattainable goal for most people in a reasonable time frame (a couple of years for example).

As for the jibe about my professional salary. That's exactly the kind of snark I'm used to from boomers when confronted with younger generations showing them the economic reality they are now facing.

Oh, and I don't live in the South East either.

It's much more that it's actually empowered some people that aren't supposed to be empowered. Especially women. And that terrifies a whole strata of society that has devoted its entire existence to keeping them in their place.

Women, disabled people, and especially disabled women.

Why have you automatically made a negative assumption that people are working less for these reasons? WFH opens up the possibility of walking the dog at lunchtime, or before or after work when you would normally commuting. The school run could take as little as 15 - 20 minutes, easily knocked off a lunch break or made up at the end of the day. Getting tea ready on time can mean starting it at 5.30 instead of having to commute back for up to an hour first. And unless you’re discussing the meaning of life with the washing machine repair man, is it really going to take that long?

I get that, in a call centre type role, there is a more rigid shift pattern and a more consistent flow of work. But for a lot of WFH roles, there will be a more natural variation of workload. I can’t be the only one who has particularly busy periods and quieter times. A great benefit of WFH for me has been the end of mindless “busy work” - the jobs you invent to look like you’re busy in a quiet period in case someone senior walks past your desk. No more deleting old emails, clearing out desk drawers, reading HR policies I already understand on the intranet… now if I’m not busy, damn right I’ll go and load the dishwasher or wipe down the worktops. I don’t apologise for it.

Because the point is, my company doesn’t just pay me for the work I do - they pay me for my availability to work. It’s essentially a retainer as much as anything. They could opt to pay a freelancer per task or project instead, but this typically comes at a premium, requires management and runs the risk of there being no one available at short notice. Therefore it’s cheaper and more efficient all round to pay me and accept the fact I might be idle at quiet times, in the knowledge that they have an experienced person ready and waiting - and on a salary, meaning they can’t charge overtime if a project means working extra hours - when needed.

If I was pissing off to the pub at 3pm on a quiet day, meaning I wasn’t available for last minute emergencies, then yes, I’d be taking the piss. If I’m a few feet away from my laptop unloading the washing machine and can respond to a ping on Teams in seconds, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.

My only concern is that women who WFH will suffer with lack of pay rises, promotion. All of which will affect your pension. My advice don't take this lying down. Keep checking jobs in your sector especially the salaries. Don't let your skills rust become outdated, do the courses available to you.

It's horses for courses I guess

The advice you give here is good, regardless of whether a woman works remotely or in person.

All of which will affect your pension.

With many working families - women in particular - having to skip meals to stay solvent, having other people worry about their pensions does seem a little ... insensitive.

I don't tear up easily, but hearing a new start accepting they will never retire really upset me.