Work from home if you can should stay in place, surely?

[Ninefeettall]

Just thinking about June 21st and Boris said as recently as yesterday or the day before that 'Work from home if you can' will be scrapped from 21 June. Surely if the Indian variant is a problem (which we don't know for sure yet) then this is a really, really, really easy win? 'If you can' doesn't have to include people who need to be in the office for mental health reasons or who can't work properly from home, but there are vast numbers of young, unvaccinated or partially vaccinated office workers who have now been working from home for a year, doing their jobs perfectly well if not better who could just keep doing that and not add to the commuters or office workers spreading the variant about.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

So if ‘working from home’ stays, should those who can’t ‘work from home’ (as we have found out these are the really essential jobs in society) demand significant increases in wages to cover the fact that they have to waste time getting to and from work and spend money doing so? Should public transport be fully subsidised so they don’t have be penalised by rising costs and reduced timetables as there are fewer buses and trains running?

It very galling to hear about people saving enough money for new kitchens, cars and holidays whilst conditions have deteriorated for those who don’t have the option. Given these jobs ARE crucial, would people accept people in these jobs should be given a lot more money to compensate - or accept strike action (no rubbish collection, no schools, no home care visits, reduction of production in factories, no supermarket deliveries...) if it isn’t given?

One of the best posts on this thread and again, as pointed out by Rose, a two-tiered society of those privileged enough to 'stay safe' working from home and those who are there to serve them.

The trouble with trying to generalise the topic is that it really differs geographically and discussions naturally centre around the SE. Public transport is of course a consideration and I completely understand the concerns, but for a lot of us we were tied up in commutes in our cars which weren't doing many people much good, public transport is very much a postcode lottery and I've never been able to utilise it outside of London in the places I've lived. Whilst I know the oil industry has taken a hit I very much doubt it'll struggle to survive.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

So if ‘working from home’ stays, should those who can’t ‘work from home’ (as we have found out these are the really essential jobs in society) demand significant increases in wages to cover the fact that they have to waste time getting to and from work and spend money doing so? Should public transport be fully subsidised so they don’t have be penalised by rising costs and reduced timetables as there are fewer buses and trains running?

It very galling to hear about people saving enough money for new kitchens, cars and holidays whilst conditions have deteriorated for those who don’t have the option. Given these jobs ARE crucial, would people accept people in these jobs should be given a lot more money to compensate - or accept strike action (no rubbish collection, no schools, no home care visits, reduction of production in factories, no supermarket deliveries...) if it isn’t given?

Strike action in these sectors might have worked in the 1970s. However fast forward to 2021 and the workforces you refer to are not only not unionised but they are often on 0 hours contracts.

Having a large pool of un / non skilled labour has been deliberately engineered, precisely to stop demands for better conditions.

(Emphasis on the places I've lived, I realise there are other areas of the country outside of London with good public transport, but not in the places I've lived).

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

So if ‘working from home’ stays, should those who can’t ‘work from home’ (as we have found out these are the really essential jobs in society) demand significant increases in wages to cover the fact that they have to waste time getting to and from work and spend money doing so? Should public transport be fully subsidised so they don’t have be penalised by rising costs and reduced timetables as there are fewer buses and trains running?

It very galling to hear about people saving enough money for new kitchens, cars and holidays whilst conditions have deteriorated for those who don’t have the option. Given these jobs ARE crucial, would people accept people in these jobs should be given a lot more money to compensate - or accept strike action (no rubbish collection, no schools, no home care visits, reduction of production in factories, no supermarket deliveries...) if it isn’t given?

Hear hear. I don't care about people working from home but it is pretty irritating hearing some of those people waxing lyrical about how they are doing those of us who can't WFH such a huge favour. I work in a factory (non essential so not classed as a key worker) we've never been so bloody busy with all the online shopping people are doing, we've had multiple people come down with Covid because we cannot do these jobs from home and it spreads like wildfire in factory settings but customers haven't been very understanding about their goods being late because we're so short staffed with people isolating.

@SingleDontWantToMingle
History shows that if equalities become too extreme, eventually people will protest. Of course, protests may or may not succeed but given that the workers who are being put at a disadvantage actually do the jobs that immediately impact on our lives, would it not be sensible to address the disparity before it gets to a point where there is disruption? I completely agree that commuting into London was expensive and unpleasant but if train services are cut and ticket prices rise to fund it, should that fall on the shoulders of a nurse or supermarket worker? And that’s just one example.

Perhaps there could be a ‘working from home’ tax to fund those who society needs to work away from home, rather than the tax breaks to work from home that are currently offered? The impact would be minimal as people are saving so much money working from home.

I’m sure the government will find ways to hammer us all though. They are going to need the taxes quite urgently.

Perhaps there could be a ‘working from home’ tax to fund those who society needs to work away from home

This is ridiculous, WFH is not simply a perk, people are still working and often doing more than they were producing in the office. For many employers it is going to save them money in the long run, this is why there have been WFH allowances for years due to the costs on the employee that would normally be the burden of the employer, travelling to work has (mostly) always been the expense of the employer. There is absolutely no reason someone WFH should be expected to any way pay for that "privilege". I agree things like London weighting will need re-evaluating, but to actually expect the WFH to pay a tax for working at home?! They will be using their own electric, gas, water and providing their own space, many people of whom have spent money to upsize to accommodate this.

Sorry commute has been expense of employEE

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

I didn't say that I agree with the current state of the labour market. I just said it had been deliberately engineered. So that MNCs have an "on call" labour supply that they can use when needed and discard (not pay) when they don't. It also means that the people working in these conditions know that they will likely lose their jobs if they protest about their terms and conditions, they will have seen their colleagues suffer that fate.

I don't get the appeal of offices, especially sardine tin, noisy, open-plan ones. They're so claustrophobic.

I dread going back. What's the appeal? Talking about last night's Corrie whilst making endless cups of tea, or just hoping for some peace and quiet so you can concentrate on your work.

@BustopherPonsonbyJones

11% of the working age population are on furlough and 5% on unemployment benefits. Whilst we have an over supply of labour, what do you think will happen to those workers on 0 hours / agency contracts if they protest? They are easily replaceable and have no right to compensation. As I said above, this is a situation that was deliberately engineered after the strikes of the 1970s.

I actually would like to return to the office at least part time but think it's not going to be happening any time soon. I have really missed human interaction for the last year or so

@User135644

I don't get the appeal of offices, especially sardine tin, noisy, open-plan ones. They're so claustrophobic.

I dread going back. What's the appeal? Talking about last night's Corrie whilst making endless cups of tea, or just hoping for some peace and quiet so you can concentrate on your work.

Its the humans in the office that I like.

Its the humans in the office that I like.

That was the worst part of it for me. Plus the pressure to do after work social stuff. I like my colleagues fine but I have my own friends, my own family and that's more than enough for me.

Always found too many people completely overwhelming.

@nameme8746
Come off it, of course it’s a perk. You aren’t saving the rest of us from Covid and the posts on this thread make it very clear how those working from home are are benefitting, even if their customers aren’t. To summarise: easy childcare, more money, nicer working conditions, more freedom, more leisure time and hence better physical heath and mental health, more money, more money, more money...). I don’t know one person who is working from home who wants to return to the office for more than two days a week. It is clearly a perk.

It would be very easy to tax home workers more to fund essential workers who can’t.

@SingleDontWantToMingle
I get your point but I really hope those essential workers who aren’t on zero hour contracts make a big enough fuss so that they benefit too,

This government is like lab animals that can't learn from their mistakes.

It is last summer's Save Pret all over again.

That ended really well - we spent November-May mostly in lockdown for the sake of a few weeks of 'freedom' and a lot of coercion to 'go back to the office'.

So now we are doing it all over again.

Save Pret, what else, Drink Out To Help Tim Martin Out

For those of us that chose a nursery or school near our place of work rather than our home, working from home is a logistical nightmare and expensive in terms of additional fuel costs. I do a 1.5 hour round trip every morning so that I can WFH!

I'd honestly be happy to pay extra tax in exchange for WFH.

Paying extra tax to work from home? That would be the final insult for me!

@BustopherPonsonbyJones I haven't said I am helping any one else, I have been WFH long before Covid, it's only since Covid that it seems to have created this rift. WFH is not an option for everyone, just as working inside isn't an option for all roles, we all know what conditions our future careers are likely to hold, I switched careers a few years ago to get out of customer facing roles to enable more flexibility. Rather than targeting those who are able to effectively work from home you need to direct it at employers. It's not employees who should be paying some sort of bogus tax to relieve the frustrations of disgruntled on premise employees.

In your little scenario of taxing WFH employees who wins? Employers. They benefit financially from reducing onsite costs, hopefully more effective employees, so they are the ones who should be forced to pay anything if there had to be some kind of financial remuneration. WFH employees are just doing their jobs, it just so happens it can be done remotely, why on earth would you charge them for that?

To summarise: easy childcare, more money, nicer working conditions, more freedom, more leisure time and hence better physical heath and mental health, more money, more money, more money...). I don’t know one person who is working from home who wants to return to the office for more than two days a week. It is clearly a perk.

And this is very subjective. Not everyone has comfortable working conditions from home, no one should be working with dependent children at home outside of pandemic oddities so shouldn't be relied upon as an appropriate childcare solution, and not everyone is physically and mentally benefiting from being at home. It's a good flexible option for those who have the right conditions at home for it. It isn't for everybody, and in situations where it works well for the employee it works well for the employer too because they have a happy, efficient employee and therefore is mutually beneficial so the employee should not bear the brunt of the negatively and/or outlandish taxes.

*negativity

Does WFH mean commercial property prices will go down (need fewer offices) & residential property prices will go up (higher demand for a spare room at home to use as an office)?

Why wouldn't that happen?

@Thefourbells

I'd honestly be happy to pay extra tax in exchange for WFH.

I'd happily buy shares in Pret and Costa if it meant I could WFH and not have to put up with the drudgery of the open plan office.

I'd happily buy shares in Pret and Costa if it meant I could WFH and not have to put up with the drudgery of the open plan office.

God me too. And I'm in a 2 bed 500sqft flat with no garden, with a 5 year old whom I home school and a DH who is also WFH.