To think perhaps WFH might need encouraged again for a while

[MrsMillhouse]

The news refers to petrol shortages. Not sure if it’s just headlines or clickbait. But if there are going to be shortages, surely the government should be starting to encourage WFH and using public transport where possible

Great, as long as work don't mind if you don't get there as you live 30 miles or more away! I do think pedestrians and decent pathways need some focus, it's been all about the bike for far too long now.

Quite agree, we should be exploring North Sea oil. While it’s not a quick solution, we are far too reliant on other nations, as has been shown to our cost with the fuel crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine as well as with the current crisis.
On WFH, this would be very costly for many, particularly those households on heating oil which are usually rural and have poor access to public transport, so compounded additional costs… but then again Keir seems determined to destroy rural life and the countryside so might view that as a bonus.

Yeah, urm. Can't see my boss going for public transport. My not rocking up til 11am isnt going to go down well. Nor will me leaving at 2 30 to get home in time for bed.

DHs work specifically advertises as "own transport preferred as no public transport routes nearby".

Not all of us have access to public transport that is fit for anything.

AFAIK oil companies are not interested in the North Sea as there is not enough oil left to justify the cost of extraction.

You also need the assurance of decades of enough political stability to justify the investment. Something neither the UK or Venezuela can provide at the moment.

“We” don’t make anything. The oil industry in the UK is privatised and the companies who extract it sell to who they want at the price they want. Take the US is self sufficient in oil and yet is still seeing huge price increases.

Our oil supplies are safe as we produce a lot ourselves and the rest we source from friendly countries unaffected by the current war. However this does not protect us from price increases because the price of oil, like that of gold or copper, determined at the global level, not by local markets.

The company I left last year (not for this reason though!) mandate 2 days a week in the office for most colleagues. This is tracked and reported on and any non compliance gets referred to a disciplinary. They also now check how long you’ve been in because people were just going in for an hour, or even swiping in for a few minutes if they happened to be in town but not at work.

I am well aware of how few companies - and their employees - have the faintest clue about how to implement remote working. Their loss and their costs.

That's what happens when you go around for 30 years saying something can't be done.

I'm not privileged or middle class and I was forced to wfh during covid even though I didn't want to. I wasn't lucky enough to be furloughed, while many people around me stayed at home on 80% pay. I have the option to work 2 days a week from home and consider myself lucky but that could be taken away at any time. I am certainly not fanatical about it. Its the bitterness and misconceptions coming from people who don't have a clue what working wfh actually means for the majority of us that is tedious

We may need to club together and all drive less to make sure we have enough fuel. We may all need to give up things we want for a bit.

We are still in the "all about me phase", so that's not happening today.

I swear some people bask in this stuff. Like it's fun for them.

I think thrre is a bit if hyperbole here. It’s a mess and prices are going to rise significantly, however, supply is not an immediate issue for the UK. We don’t get a large amount of oil from the gulf states, though we are more exposed to LNG shortages. The issue- certainly in the immediate-medium future- is going to be price of oil, diesel, petrol (and jet fuel) and gas is going to rise- not that we are at imminent threat of running out of it. The reason the reserves were released was to try to keep prices lower, not to avoid shortages. I’m not saying it won’t be a problem in the future- but it is not right now or in the next few months.

Some countries- like the Philippines- are far more reliant on supplies from the gulf states, which is why they have initiated (or in some cases are considering) rationing. They are potentially facing supply shortages because of their usual suppliers.

Therefore, I don’t think we need to rush in to mandated WFH for all but essential workers. As an aside, are you also going to ban all non-essential travel (so no going to leisure activities, visiting family, travel for holidays). Also, you’d have to limit online deliveries to essentials if you are making the argument that only essential workers can travel for work. Frankly, it is not a great economic strategy and one which should be used when there are few other options. Right now, it is not necessary- so why damage the already economy out of panic? For a start, there are many other measures we could take to limit before mandating WFH.

edited to add: I’d be more concerned about LNG shortages, which the UK is far more exposed to.

Our CEO was asked that question directly. She spluttered a bit, directed it to HR, and the HR lady said that ‘if it was causing financial hardship then maybe on an individual basis things could be reconsidered’. How ridiculous! People don’t need to come in to fill in spreadsheets. If there’s a shortage of fuel, it needs to be saved for ambulances, not used so that Margaret can drive to work to mince about answering emails.

Completely, I really don't understand why some companies are so backwards in their thinking on this. It's really very odd.

Never underestimate the power of "this is how we have always done things".

As a lot of scientists will agree when asked the question: "What drives progress ?"

"Old people die".

This is how I feel. I'm reducing driving so far as possible as the fuel should be there for those who need it.

I'm disabled so my car is my mobility vehicle but I can reduce leisure trips to do my bit

With the added bonus that it will be good for air quality /the environment too

I (I'm covering staff gaps at the moment so the driving's more than it could/should be) can be seeing a client 60 miles away from where I live. There's no one who lives nearer who can cover this isolated rural patch, public transport is the joys of rural transport connections... I'm not biking THAT!

We can do things like car share to get to office hubs - but we don't even have bookable clinic rooms for those who we can GET to travel to see us, and lots of our clients can't cope with public transport, or are significantly disabled and housebound. It's not like Call the Midwife where you're biking around a compact geographic area in my community job - we have a massive massive rural area I cover and it's one where I used to need at least a tank of fuel a week until I switched car recently.

Currently, there is no diesel/petrol/oil shortage- costs are rising but this country does not and is highly unlikely to have a shortage in the immediate-medium term (as things stand). We are not as reliant on gulf oil as some countries (we are more vulnerable to LNG shortage though). So, there is no need to mandate working from home. Why wouldn’t they do the government do something which is almost certainly economically damaging, unnecessarily? To protect individuals from higher fuel costs? There are better, far more cost effective, ways they could try to insulate consumers from higher fuel costs than mandating wfh.

Do I think some jobs can be done well from home? Yes. Do I think wfh is a universal good and the right way to go for the majority of workplaces (barring those clearly ineligible)? No.

WFH had negative impact on many aspects of productivity and also on the wider economy, and many individual people too. I absolutely understand some people prefer to wfh, for a variety of reasons, and it can be a good solution for some employees and employers. However, counter to the usual narrative that wfh was universally/almost always more productive than being in your workplace, this has been shown not to be true. Part of the reason many organisations have gone back to in the office is not just because there are stuffy old idiots in charge, who are set in their ways (agree that in some cases, it will be)- given wfh would likely save costs such as office space/utility costs etc- why wouldn’t they do that if it were such an obvious benefit to them and keeping their employees happy? The reason is that it is just not the best solution for the majority of those organisations.

Are you mostly women? I ask because in our works the only people allowed to wfh is the management……all men. I’ve said before that it’s just a power grab as they see it as a perk of their status…..the peasants don’t qualify.

Bikes ? For 5.5 miles ?

But how will she Spark Ideas if she's not sitting in an open plan miles from anyone in her actual team???

I agree with you. I am a domiciliary care worker and the petrol stations in my local area are at times running out of fuel. I grab it where I can because I need to get to people's homes to take care of them. If this continues we will struggle to do our jobs.
I only use my car when necessary now. Walk when I can.

Would love to use public transport,but buses to my village are every two hours and as there are no shops here,thats go to town for bread; wait two hours to come back.mmm tempting.

Agreed - I believe that Thatcher started selling it off, unlike Norway who used their North Sea Oil to create a Sovereign Fund now worth $1trillion to spend on their citizens.
The Tories have really plundered this country.