Why does it seem most are against WFH?

[user6776]

Just read an article that has said civil servants are now to work from the office at least 3 days a week. I'm not a civil servant, but my company adopts the same approach. WFH is generally frowned upon and they are all about being in the office as much as possible.

I prefer WFH. Less time commuting, more productive as no office distractions, can get stuff done on my lunch hour. It's a no brainer for me. I agree going in the office periodically to meet with the team and for important meetings but other than that I don't benefit much

What does everybody else think?

Yeah, that's working well in all the run down town centres where there are row upon row of empty/derelict shops. Where are the "another will take it's place" in those places????

@enchantedsquirrelwood

I didn't imply that you were responsible for someone else's business. I was simply noting the sociological impact that WFH has had on businesses which previously catered to swathes of office workers. I went on to say that times are forever changing and that things die a death, so pretty much agreeing with you.

I do think that poor line management causes a lot of problems. Sounds like a lot of line managers aren't really on top of what their staff are doing if they're skiving doing childcare, etc.

One of the good things my son says about his employer is that they have twice daily online teams meetings that all staff in his department have to attend (unless they've booked holiday or have signed themselves off as sick or otherwise booked absence) - from the latest intern right up to the department head! Those in the office "attend" the same online teams meeting as those WFH. At first he thought it funny that he was talking online with someone at the desk opposite! But he now realises how much it builds the team, keeps them all knowing what each other are doing and the newer ones with less work to do can ask if experienced staff need any help, likewise, the experienced ones who maybe have a big "in tray" can ask for help. The best thing is the timing! The first is 9-15 every morning and the second is 3-15 every afternoon. That means whether you're in the office or WFH, you have to be ready and logged in by 9-15, and likewise, whatever you're doing in the afternoon, you have to be logged in at 3-15. A cynic would say that's to stop people taking the piss by sleeping in, picking up kids from school mid afternoon, going shopping, etc. DS is first to say a lot of what is discussed at the meetings goes way over his head as most of it is the senior staff discussing things way above his pay grade, but he likes it just to get to know the other staff, even if only by sight.

I understand the economic arguments around labour supply and the need to inventivise more in a tighter labour market but the problem is that ultimately low productivity is disastrous for the economy and the country. Employers should of course be doing more to drive up productivity but equally workers and the government need to play their part too.

If you are looking to employ people in relatively low paid jobs then you will find you are competing with a benefits system that is relatively generous in some cases (I know this is unpopular on MN but it is the reality). This interferes with the usual labour market dynamics and can lead to an artificial tightening at the expense of the tax payer. I think most people would consider this to be undesirable and something that should be tackled.

It's all also very well insisting that businesses should be offering incentives to workers to actually work the hours they are paid to work but for many businesses they simply don't have the resources to do this and remain profitable. Over time this will simply mean either they go bust, grow at a much slower pace than they ordinarily would do or simply hire less people to keep labour costs down. All of this plays a part in shrinking our economy and has all sorts of consequences for the country that will ultimately drip down to employees who will then moan about rampant inflation or a softening labour market without acknowledging the important part that productivity has played in all this.

I do overall accept your argument though that ultimately it is the employer's responsibility to inventivise or 'police' their workforce because too many employee's aren't willing to take any self responsibility. It's easier to keep an eye on people in the office and monitor who is doing what. Yes, you always have people taking the piss and slackers but at least they are more visible. The old adage 'out of sight, out of mind' comes in and I think if most people were honest, if they were the ones paying then they would probably want visibility of what people were doing.

The thing is @Bumpitybumper that workers don't actually need to. You kind of get to this point yourself later on in the post. People have choices. As did employers when there were more workers than jobs.

Some businesses will indeed be unable to stay viable in our current labour conditions, yes. If they need their workers to do more than they can incentivise them for, it's far from clear that it would be better for them to survive.

I don't agree with your view that most people would want physical visibility if it was their business. That seems a big oversimplification and generalisation to me. It's going depend on who's more productive where, the nature of the work being done, the ability to actually monitor what staff are doing even if you can see them, where the people you want are living and how to get the best staff for the most competitive wage.

People always have choices. Most people weigh up the potential outcomes of various courses of actions and make their decision accordingly. Some respond better to the carrot and some to the stick. The stick for the unproductive and lazy is the fear of being caught or losing your job. I accept that employees will be less worried about losing their job if they think there is an abundance of other opportunities out there, but in my experience the people I have known that have been fired have been pretty devastated amd worried even in a more favourable job market. Humans hate uncertainly!

Like it or not, people are more likely to be caught being unproductive if they are in the same physical space as others. This won't be true across every industry and profession but ultimately you at least have to pretend to look busy when you're sat at your desk and people can see your screen than if you are at home and can nip off to do the school run or whizz round with the hoover. Using the cleaner analogy, if someone is at home when the cleaner is there then the cleaner may well still be being unproductive but they would be doing this knowing that you could check what they're doing at any point and catch them on their phone etc. If no-one is home then it is simply easier to get away with it.

Motivation is a complex thing and varies greatly from person to person and between different workforces. Sure, if you have need some rare skill or you have some very sophisticated technology that can properly track what employees are doing (not just someone tapping a key on the keyboard every half hour whilst they clean their kitchen) then I can see that WFH is less of a threat to productivity and even a necessity to attract the workforce you need. Most businesses aren't like that though and this is why there is a growing acceptance that physical presence in workplaces can be really important for productivity.

Like it or not, people are more likely to be caught being unproductive if they are in the same physical space as others. This won't be true across every industry and profession

Your second sentence completely contradicts your first @Bumpitybumper! There's no 'like it or not' when you're only talking about some people, and even you get that yourself.

As I've said a lot of times in this thread, and which I'm not sure you even disagree with, the answer on nearly all remote working questions is 'it depends'. Generalisations always serve you poorly, and what would work in your business doesn't tell us anything about totally different jobs and sectors.

Twice daily? That sounds like ridiculous overkill and would actively reduce productivity where I work. Having to stop what I'm doing just to attend would cause far bigger problems trying to refocus afterwards!

DH is a civil servant and is far more productive wfh.

His team are all spread across the country so 100% of their meetings and discussions are on TEAMS anyway…. so being physically in an office doesn’t actually help their team.
there aren’t enough desks for everyone so trying to schedule days to accommodate everyone can be a nightmare.
when in the office he starts later, finishes earlier.

@ScarlettSunset

Twice daily? That sounds like ridiculous overkill and would actively reduce productivity where I work. Having to stop what I'm doing just to attend would cause far bigger problems trying to refocus afterwards!

Not really any different to taking a works phone call from a colleague, or a colleague stopping to chat at your desk. Or (as many WFH'ers say never happens), answering the door to take in a parcel, or putting the washing out, etc.

It's not as if the teams meetings last for hours - they're typically 10-15 minutes apparently.

Not sure why a scheduled teams meeting that all staff know about is worse than a random delivery guy at your door or noticing it's raining and rushing out to bring your washing in!

Scheduled daily standups are a pain in the butt because they bust out your diary. I alternate between 15 minute calls at 30 minute intervals until 10 every day, and it’s massively inconvenient and cuts down on the time I have available for both proper meetings and proper work.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-67498185

This would be fine to all the pro work from home people. They'll say as long as she gets her work done it doesn't matter. And if it does matter a tiny bit its just bad management rather than anything to do with working from home.
I think people are only pro work from home until someone doing it affects them negatively.
Imagine you were on the phone to a doctor about something you were worried about. And while explaining it to them you discovered they were trying to look after a child or were cleaning their windows but claimed to still be listening. I think most people would be very irritated.
Which is why I think WFH only works for certain jobs. But the majority of people who think their job is one of them are often wrong.

Having been to a number of council meetings, councillors are very frequently doing something else during them. It's just that the something else is normally paperwork and doesn't involve them getting up, so it's not noticeable. She quite conceivably was paying as much attention cleaning the windows as she would've been whilst sitting in the chamber. But the problem here is some of her constituents seem to feel it's disrespectful, and as an elected representative she has a duty to reflect and respond to that.

Really though, anyone who thinks councillors doing things when other councillors are talking is limited to remote meetings clearly hasn't been to many. But your post is typical of myopic wfh criticism, an assumption that particular behaviours don't exist in a face to face context. There's no corresponding assumption that in person workplaces where people are pissing about should all be remote instead.

Oops. That is a bit unfortunate especially when she runs to turn off her camera after realising. Councillors aren’t paid a salary and not everything being discussed would be of crucial relevance.
But still the optics aren’t good are they.

I loved working from home 5 days but now have to do 3 days in office : ( love my two days wfh though. More productive, comfy clothes, no commute, extra hour and a half in bed. Heaven. I’d love to be able to wfh all the time.

No it wouldn't be fine. At all. Why make up shit to try to justify your position?

Going by the amount of traffic on the roads round me every morning, I'm not that convinced that people are WFH in droves. The traffic seems as busy as it did pre-covid, I travel in the opposite direction to the worst of the traffic but it is as bad as ever.

No it wouldn't be fine. At all. Why make up shit to try to justify your position

this

i work from home, i am more productive, i do not do anything but work, wee and get two coffees a day

i do not think that people doing washes or cleaning their house or watching tv or cleaning their windows during work hours is ok

it is however, theirs and their employees business

I'm the same.

When I'm on my break ( I get 45 minutes lunch break and 2 x 15 minutes break) I make myself something quick to eat, take a shower or relax on the sofa. I'm not in the mindset for housework during my breaks.

When I'm working im always very busy and don't leave my desk. My job is target driven, so my managers would definitely pick up on me slacking at home.

I also pay 1200 pounds nursery fees (after discounts are applied) so that I can work from home.

It's ridiculous to say that people work from home so that they can save on childcare and watch Netflix all day long.

Agree hotpot

though i should clarify i meant during working hours, obviously during my lunch break i do whatever i damn well please 😀

I agree, not sure where everyone is going (and I am out for a walk by the way, I am not adding to the car traffic!)