To feel that remote working should be a right, not a privilege?

[AlertBird]

With the advances in technology, it seems outdated that so many companies still require employees to come into the office for jobs that could easily be done remotely. AIBU to think that, for jobs where possible, remote working should be a right, not a privilege? It could help with work-life balance and reduce stress, but a lot of employers seem stuck in their old ways of thinking.

Well it depends really. Remote working abroad brings a lot of tax and employment headaches for employers that most employees are unaware of. Remote working in UK is suitable for some jobs but not all and it's definitely harder to get trainees etc to have right coaching when all senior people are Remote.
Ultimately it's a balance and each organisation is different. I don't think it should be an automatic right

It’s up to the company really. People can vote with their feet if they don’t like it, or be drawn to a company if they don’t like working from home.

I don’t think everyone should be forced to come into the office, or be forced to work from home. People are different and that difference is important for companies. Diversity in teams has been shown to increase productivity. A good company respects that people perform better in different ways and works with the employee to make sure they get the best out of the employee and the employee gets the best from the company.

It depends on the company and its needs.

How can it be a right ?
It only works if you have an office based job and many people don't.

It’s up to the employer to decide what works best for their business needs. If you don’t like their terms don’t work for them.

No it shouldn’t be a right. In lots of jobs (not all) it is better for people to be in at least some days each week for training both for themselves and for new starters and juniors, collaboration and team morale. Some people work better in the office even if they may not see it themselves. It should be up to the company to decide and enoloyees can choose to work there or not.

Completely disagree. It’s up to the business

Funny how the remote training ‘issue’ never applies when companies like JP Morgan outsource to India. They only want it to apply for ib ‘sales’ jobs where they want the younger and attractive staff to be their ‘face’ to the client.

It needs to work for the company as a whole not just certain individuals though. Companies need to have clear policies on WFH so people can make their decisions when applying but it shouldn’t be a given that it will work.

Be careful what you wish for.

If your job can be done 100% remotely with no need for you ever to come into the office, then it can surely be done remotely at a fraction of the cost from India or somewhere.

But in India the team tends to be working on site in the office and they have trainees and more senior people so that's not really the point

Face to face contact still matters. Video calling does not replace it. All the data shows that quite a number of important but subtle things are affected by remote working: team collaboration and efficiency, engagement, creativity and innovation, effective management and leadership.

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘a right’. In law?
That’s never going to happen.

Many businesses and parts of the public sector rely on in-person interactions.

Flexibility and a reasonable approach on both sides - employers and employees - yes. A right to work from home, no, pie in the sky.

I know you say where possible so you ruled out jobs which couldn't be done at home. But even those that could be done from home, I feel should be the employers discretion. A person's home set up might not be suitable so it impacts performance or just the health and safety duty an employer has, or that individual might need more supervision or support than others even though the tasks themselves were possible from home.

I work for a similar IB. Our employees in India are in the office. They have almost no remote working at all

Presence facilitates collaboration and communication. I cannot think of many jobs in the environments I work in where the person could be genuinely and usefully full time WAH. But WAH a couple of days a week - yes.

Great. I will teach from home tomorrow then! And I won't take my daughter to her retail job today, because she can do that from home.

In all seriousness, if you make it a 'right' how are you going to handle the millions of people who can't work from home?

Labour are proposing exactly that right I thought?!

The age of massive scale offshoring is over precisely because companies found quite a lot of unexpected negative effects from doing it, from the distance and the lack of close and deep understanding. Offshored work tends to be the stuff that's heavily commoditised now.

Why should it be a right? Sadly, too many have proven that working from home comes with taking the piss. Managers have more important tasks to undertake than having to spy on their staff if they suspect they spend more time watching TV than doing work. Because ultimately, without very clear evidence over time, trying to dismiss the employee without very sound evidence means taking the risk of being taken to court and losing. All this would cost a lot of money to the business.

So why would businesses take all those risks? It is absolutely right that it should stay as a privilege to employees who can be trusted to do exactly the same at home as they would do in the office. The only benefit to the employee should be the reduction of travel and a couple of breaks a day to put a wash on or similar.

I’m not clear on what exactly the government is proposing @curious79 I haven’t looked into it.

But I doubt it’s a blanket ‘right’ for all employees to work from home.

No, of course not, isn't it perfectly onviois why that's a non starter

It depends on the job and workplace, but I think 100% WFH would be really unhealthy for most people. We're in danger of becoming avatars - so much of our lives is already virtual or conducted via screens, I think that would be disastrous on the whole for society.

Hybrid working, where appropriate, or flex, I'm all for, but we need to appreciate that human interactions are important and not something to be sacrificed for convenience.

It depends on the job and workplace, but I think 100% WFH would be really unhealthy for most people. We're in danger of becoming avatars - so much of our lives is already virtual or conducted via screens, I think that would be disastrous on the whole for society.

Hybrid working, where appropriate, or flex, I'm all for, but we need to appreciate that human interactions are important and not something to be sacrificed for convenience.

It can’t be a “right” because by definition some jobs can’t be done remotely. You couldn’t for example be a welder or a paramedic if you worked from home.

Even with office jobs it’s not always possible to allow people to be remote as the default. There are plenty of good social reasons for insisting employees get together and some client facing businesses depend on face to face communication.

But I do think the mindless insistence on having bums on seats just for the sake of it (the pernicious presenteeism of Jacob Rees Mogg and the Daily Telegraph) needs to get in the bin. Most of this is snobbery and misogyny dressed up as concern. Or people just not trusting their employees.

A lot of working mothers have been significantly freed up by the growth of remote and removing that right would be pretty regressive.